cst_evaluate_antenna

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explicitly states read-only, does not modify the model, exports S-parameter data, and returns pass/fail, worst VSWR, and resonances. However, 'exports S-parameter data' could imply writing to disk, which may be a side effect not fully clarified.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose. No unnecessary words. Each sentence adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description adequately covers inputs, behavior, and outputs. It could be more specific about the return format, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's function.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond stating targets per band, which aligns with the vswr_target field. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool evaluates antenna simulation results against performance goals, specifically checking VSWR or return loss per band. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cst_get_vswr or cst_get_s_parameters by combining multiple evaluations and providing a pass/fail summary.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for use (after simulation, read-only) but does not explicitly mention when not to use or suggest alternatives among the many sibling tools for specific metrics.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.