cst_get_s_parameters

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing mode-specific behavior (direct result tree read vs VBA script generation), but it does not explicitly state the tool is read-only, explain how to select a run via run_id, or describe error behavior if the simulation is incomplete. This is partial disclosure.

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-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes the offline mode detail without unnecessary words. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function and behavior.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core function and modes. However, it omits guidance on run_id (which simulation run to use), how to determine connected vs offline mode, and behavior when no simulation results exist. For a tool with 5 parameters, this is a noticeable gap.

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 adds meaning by explaining the 'port pair' concept (port_in/port_out) and the available data formats (magnitude, phase, real/imaginary) which map to the format parameter. It does not clarify run_id, but the schema covers most parameters.

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 extracts S-parameter results from a completed CST simulation and specifies the data types returned (magnitude, phase, real/imaginary) for a port pair. This is a specific verb+resource that effectively differentiates it from the phase-only sibling cst_get_s_parameter_phase, though it does not explicitly name that sibling.

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 provides clear context by noting the simulation must be completed and distinguishes connected vs offline modes. However, it does not explicitly direct users to alternatives (e.g., cst_get_s_parameter_phase for phase-only needs) or state when not to use this tool, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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