cst_get_gain

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

Given no annotations, the description effectively discloses key behaviors: it reads gain from a completed simulation, requires a farfield monitor, and returns peak gain and direction. It is transparent about prerequisites and outputs, but does not mention potential errors if the monitor is missing.

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 three sentences with no fluff: first sentence states purpose, second describes return, third gives a requirement. It is front-loaded and efficient, earning its keep.

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?

For a simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose, return value, and prerequisites. However, it could add clarity about the need for an exact frequency match to the farfield monitor and what happens if the monitor is absent.

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 already describes the frequency parameter with complete coverage (100%). The tool description adds minimal value by stating 'at a specific frequency' and relating it to the output, but does not provide additional validation or format guidance beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'antenna gain' with specific conditions: 'from a completed CST simulation' and 'at a specific frequency'. It also specifies the output (peak gain in dBi and direction), distinguishing it from siblings like cst_get_efficiency or cst_get_bandwidth.

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 mentions the prerequisite of a farfield monitor, implying when not to use, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cst_get_farfield or cst_get_radiation_pattern_3d. It lacks exclusionary context.

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