cst_add_waveguide_port_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only says it adds a port. It does not disclose permissions required, whether the port persists across solver runs, how it interacts with existing ports, or what 'on a plane' constrains. 'Add' at least signals a mutation, but the disclosure 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler — structurally clean. It is concise rather than bloated; the weakness is under-specification, which is captured in the other dimensions rather than a conciseness failure.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and no parameter documentation, this description is far too thin. An agent cannot safely construct the required range/orientation/port_number arguments, and the presence of an output schema does not compensate for the missing input and behavioral context.

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 0% across 9 parameters, and the description supplies no parameter meaning at all. Field names like 'xrange/yrange/zrange', 'orientation', 'on_boundary', 'reference_plane' and 'n_modes' are highly ambiguous (array vs. scalar ranges, orientation encoding, units) and remain completely unexplained.

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 (add) and resource (waveguide port) plus placement (on a plane of the calculation domain), which implicitly distinguishes it from sibling cst_add_discrete_port_tool. However, it never names that sibling or clarifies what makes a waveguide port different, so sibling differentiation is only implied.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., that a project must be open or that 'plane' refers to a boundary), and no mention of alternatives such as cst_add_discrete_port_tool. The agent must infer everything about context.

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