cst_read_port_info_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. 'Read' implies a safe non-mutating call, but the description says nothing about prerequisites, whether cst_file/operating_frequency are needed, error behavior if no port exists, or how the mode data is scoped. It essentially only restates the return contents.

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 tight sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then lists the returned quantities. No padding, though it is arguably under-specified rather than efficient.

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 re-explained, but the description leaves the two input parameters completely unexplained and offers no usage context for a CST port-inspection tool surrounded by many similar read siblings. It is not complete enough for an agent to call it confidently.

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 the description never mentions either parameter (cst_file, operating_frequency) — not even that they exist or that both default to null. With two undocumented parameters, the description does nothing to 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 ('Read') and resource ('port mode information'), and enumerates the concrete outputs (cutoff frequency, wave impedance, effective permittivity). It does not differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as cst_read_reference_impedance_tool or cst_list_ports_tool, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 statement of when to call this tool, what preconditions are needed (e.g., a port must exist, a project must be open), or which sibling to use for related port queries. The agent gets the what but not the when.

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