Run the solver and generate a design report containing S-parameters, model views, and optional farfield results.
Run the solver, then immediately build a design report (S-params + views + optional farfield). Simülasyonu çalıştırıp rapor paketini üretir.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| port | No | ||
| out_dir | No | ||
| timeout_s | No | ||
| max_points | No | ||
| frequency_ghz | No | ||
| include_images | No | ||
| include_farfield | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the high-level behavior: it runs the solver, builds a report, and includes optional farfield. However, with no annotations it does not say whether this blocks, how long it may run, what files are written, whether existing reports are overwritten, or how results are returned.
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 English sentence is compact and front-loaded, but the second Turkish sentence ('Simülasyonu çalıştırıp rapor paketini üretir') merely repeats the same information and does not add value for an agent.
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 chained, potentially long-running action with 7 parameters and no output schema, this is incomplete. It lacks return-value information, behavior around missing farfield monitors, report destination, and required setup.
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?
All seven parameters are undocumented in the schema (0% coverage) and the description only indirectly hints at include_farfield ('optional farfield') and port via 'S-params'. It does not explain out_dir, timeout_s, max_points, frequency_ghz, or include_images, leaving the agent to guess from parameter names.
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 states a clear, composite operation – 'Run the solver, then immediately build a design report' – and enumerates the report contents ('S-params + views + optional farfield'). This is enough to distinguish it from siblings such as cst_run_simulation (run-only) and cst_workflow_design_report (report-only).
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?
No guidance about when to choose this combined workflow instead of cst_run_simulation, cst_workflow_design_report, or cst_workflow_run_and_s11. It gives no prerequisites (e.g., ports/solver setup, farfield monitors) and no exclusions, so the agent must infer selection from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.