cst_get_farfield_metrics

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does disclose that it uses FarfieldPlot.GetMax for gain, avoids ASCIIExportSummary (which spams messages), and is compatible with GUI farfield. It also implies read-only behavior ('Read'). However, it does not mention side effects, error handling, or what happens if no solve exists or monitor_name is incorrect.

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 redundant: it includes both English and Turkish versions of essentially the same information ('Solve sonrası S11, verimlilik ve max gain; GUI farfield ile uyumlu.'). This duplication adds length without value. The structure is front-loaded with the purpose, but the translation bloat makes it less concise than it could be.

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 covers what metrics are returned (S11, efficiency, gain) and mentions the frequency parameter for efficiency sampling. However, it does not specify the return format (e.g., dict, list) or units, which is critical given there is no output schema. It also lacks information about error handling or prerequisites beyond 'after a solve.' It is adequate but leaves gaps.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage for all three parameters, each with a clear description (monitor_name format, frequency purpose, try_farfield_plot behavior). The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already states. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline 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's purpose: 'Read antenna metrics after a solve: S11 + radiation/total efficiency from 1D Results, plus max realized gain via official FarfieldPlot.GetMax.' It specifies the exact resource (1D Results, farfield) and the method, which distinguishes it from siblings like cst_get_farfield or cst_get_gain. The mention of the specific API (FarfieldPlot.GetMax) and the avoidance of ASCIIExportSummary further differentiates it.

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?

It implies usage after a solve ('after a solve') and provides a caveat about ASCIIExportSummary on CST 2026, which hints at an alternative. It also notes compatibility with GUI farfield. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this combined tool versus separate tools like cst_get_s_parameters or cst_get_efficiency, nor does it state exclusions.

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