cst_get_s_parameter_phase

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states a key prerequisite (completed CST simulation) and the optional unwrap behavior, which is useful. However, it does not disclose the read-only nature, return format, units, or error handling, leaving notable gaps.

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?

Four concise sentences with no fluff. The main action and key option are front-loaded. There is slight redundancy between 'Extract' and 'Returns,' but overall the structure is efficient and each sentence contributes.

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 5-parameter get tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should clarify run_id semantics, phase units (degrees vs radians), and the return structure. It covers purpose and unwrap well but leaves these important operational details to the schema or agent inference, making it adequate but incomplete.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description indirectly references unwrap and the specified S-parameter (via port_in/port_out), but the schema already describes most parameters. It does not compensate for the undocumented run_id parameter, which lacks a schema description.

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 identifies the resource (S-parameter phase), the action (extract/return), and the output (phase vs frequency). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cst_get_s_parameters and cst_get_group_delay by focusing specifically on phase, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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 explicit use cases ('Useful for group delay analysis and phase-matching designs'), giving agents clear context for when to apply the tool. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, stopping short of full exclusion guidance.

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