cst_get_vswr

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool reads from a completed simulation and explains the VSWR metric, but it does not mention whether it requires a specific solver type, what happens if the simulation is incomplete, or the return format. The max_points parameter behavior is partially described in the schema, not the description.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a brief explanation of the metric and its relation to S11. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 read-only post-processing tool with no output schema, the description covers the metric definition and the prerequisite (completed simulation), but it omits details about the return structure, how run_id is used, and any solver-specific requirements. The sibling list shows many related result-getting tools, so a bit more context on when this is the right choice would improve completeness.

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 67% (port and max_points are described, run_id is not). The description adds context for the port parameter by explaining VSWR is per-port, but it does not explain run_id or the max_points preview behavior beyond what the schema already states. The description adds some value but does not fully compensate for the undocumented 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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves VSWR for a port from a completed CST simulation, with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Voltage Standing Wave Ratio for a port'). It also explains what VSWR means and how it relates to S11, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like cst_get_s_parameters or cst_get_impedance.

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 implies the tool is for post-simulation analysis ('from a completed CST simulation') and provides the VSWR formula from S11, which helps an agent understand when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for similar metrics (e.g., cst_get_s_parameters, cst_get_impedance).

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