Set the simulation frequency range in GHz to define the bandwidth for solver computations, ensuring results cover the required spectrum.
Set the simulation frequency range in GHz. This determines the bandwidth over which the solver computes results.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| f_max | Yes | Maximum frequency in GHz | |
| f_min | Yes | Minimum frequency in GHz |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool 'determines the bandwidth over which the solver computes results', but fails to mention any side effects, required sequence, or potential impact on existing settings. The description is minimal.
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 extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the action, and the second adds context. Every word is necessary, and there is no redundancy.
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 two-parameter tool, the description is adequate but lacks additional context such as whether this setting is persistent, if it can be called multiple times, or any preconditions. Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, a score of 3 reflects a minimum viable description.
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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters described as 'Minimum/Maximum frequency in GHz'. The description does not add any semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 verb 'Set' and the resource 'simulation frequency range', specifying units in GHz. It is distinct from sibling tools like cst_set_mesh_density or cst_set_boundary, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as whether it should be called before setting ports or running a simulation, or if there are prerequisites. No exclusion criteria or context is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.