cst_workflow_design_report

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

With no annotations, the description bears full behavioral disclosure. It discloses soft-failure behavior, best-effort farfield export, and the one-shot aggregation nature. It does not mention side effects like file writing locations or runtime costs, but the failure-mode transparency is genuinely useful.

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 core English content is compact and front-loaded with the key idea and then the failure behavior. The Turkish sentence adds duplication without new information, slightly reducing efficiency, but overall the description is appropriately sized.

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 8 parameters, low parameter documentation, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves meaningful gaps. An agent still lacks clarity on output format/return value, how max_points or port influence results, and what 'best-effort' means concretely for farfield data. It is a good high-level package description but not fully complete for safe invocation.

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 only 25%, so the description needed to compensate. It hints at the include_* toggles by naming sections (S-parameters, farfield, images, parameters), but it does not explain port, max_points, frequency_ghz, or out_dir beyond the schema's sparse coverage. Parameter meaning remains largely underspecified.

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 composite action ('ONE-SHOT design package') and enumerates concrete result sections: project status, parameters/dimensions, S-parameters, farfield export, and structure view images. This clearly distinguishes it from single-purpose siblings like cst_export_farfield or cst_export_structure_views.

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?

Explicitly scopes the tool to use 'after modeling/simulation' and frames it as a one-shot aggregation call. It communicates failure tolerance ('Each section fails soft') which helps an agent decide to invoke it even when some data may be missing, though it does not name explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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