cst_get_bandwidth

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state what the tool returns (center frequency, bandwidth, fractional bandwidth) and mentions the threshold criterion. However, it omits important behavioral details such as whether a simulation must have been run, how results are stored, or error conditions. The description is transparent about the output but lacks depth on prerequisites and side effects.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loading the primary purpose and then detailing the computation and outputs. There is no redundancy or filler. Every sentence contributes to understanding, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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?

The description is fairly complete for a simple compute tool. It clearly lists the return values, which is crucial since there is no output schema. It could be improved by noting that it operates on existing S-parameter results and possibly the units for center frequency (implied but not explicit). However, given the simplicity and the context from sibling tools, it is adequately complete.

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 description coverage is 80% (4 out of 5 parameters have descriptions), so the schema already provides most parameter meaning. The description adds minimal extra value: it mentions threshold and S11/VSWR but doesn't elaborate on parameter semantics beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: calculating impedance bandwidth from S-parameter results. It specifies the method (finding frequency range where S11 or VSWR meets threshold) and the output (center frequency, bandwidth in MHz, fractional bandwidth). This is distinct from sibling tools like cst_get_s_parameters or cst_get_vswr, making its function unambiguous.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., simulation must be run, S-parameters must exist) nor does it suggest when to choose a different tool (e.g., cst_get_s_parameters for raw data). Usage context is only implied, not explicit.

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