cst_get_smith_chart_data

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It discloses the computation path (from S11 via the given formula) and the return content (real and imaginary normalized impedance). It does not cover error behavior or explicitly confirm no side effects, but the 'completed simulation' phrasing implies read-only extraction.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first states the purpose, the second states the formula and return values. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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 tool with four optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential operational context: prerequisite, computation, and return shape. The only notable gap is run_id's meaning, which the schema also leaves undescribed, though defaults make the tool usable without it.

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%, covering z0, port, and max_points, leaving only run_id unexplained. The description reinforces z0's role through the formula but adds little beyond the schema and does not clarify run_id.

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?

States a specific verb ('Extract'), the resource ('Smith chart formatted impedance data'), and the source ('completed CST simulation'). The formula Z = Z0*(1+S11)/(1-S11) makes the function's role precise and differentiates it from sibling impedance or S-parameter getters.

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?

Clearly frames usage as post-simulation extraction ('from a completed CST simulation') and identifies the output purpose ('for Smith chart plotting'). It provides a clear context but does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use this tool.

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