cst_get_group_delay

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the mathematical definition and intended use, but does not disclose output shape, prerequisites such as needing prior S-parameter results, units, or whether the tool is strictly read-only.

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: what it computes, the formal definition, and a relevant use case. No filler or repeated schema content; the formula earns its place as behavioral clarification.

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 computation tool, the description plus schema is mostly sufficient, but with no output schema it should clarify what the caller receives (curve vs single value, units, relationship to max_points). It also does not mention preconditions such as existing simulation results.

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 75%, with port_in and port_out already described and max_points partially described. The description adds no direct parameter details, but the schema handles most semantics; run_id remains undocumented in both places.

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 uses a specific verb ('Compute') and names a precise resource ('group delay from S-parameter phase for a port pair'). It clearly differentiates this tool from siblings like cst_get_s_parameter_phase or cst_get_vswr by identifying the derived quantity and its source.

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 a domain context ('Useful for UWB antenna and filter characterization'), which implies when this metric matters. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when NOT to use this tool, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria.

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