Export S-parameters to a Touchstone file at a chosen reference impedance for RF/microwave simulation and analysis.
Export the S-parameters as a Touchstone file at a chosen reference impedance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filename | Yes | ||
| impedance | No | ||
| data_format | No | RI | |
| export_type | No | S | |
| frequency_range | No | Full |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden; it states only the core operation. It omits overwrite behavior, required prior results, file-path constraints, and whether the impedance choice affects other settings — all material for a file-writing tool.
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 the action first and no wasted words. It is efficiently sized for the information it contains, though that information is sparse.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but with no annotations and zero parameter documentation, the description is too sparse to call the tool correctly. It does not describe the enum-like choices for data_format, export_type, or frequency_range.
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% and five parameters are present, but the description only clarifies 'impedance' via 'chosen reference impedance'. It gives no meaning for data_format, export_type, or frequency_range, so it does not compensate for the schema gap.
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 (Export) and resource (S-parameters as a Touchstone file), and adds the reference-impedance condition. This distinguishes it from sibling cst_export_ascii_tool by output format, so an agent can identify it without opening the schema.
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 when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. It does not mention when to prefer this tool over cst_export_ascii_tool or any other export path, leaving selection entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.