cst_read_reference_impedance_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. "Read" implies a non-mutating operation and the matching caveat adds a useful interpretive constraint, but nothing is said about behavior with no cst_file supplied (default null), error handling, or project-scoping.

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. The trailing clause is slightly cryptic but earns its place as a usage caution, so the sizing is appropriate.

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 needn't be described, but the tool omits any explanation of cst_file (including null/default semantics) and has no annotation coverage to lean on. For a callable read tool, an agent lacks the info needed to invoke 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?

There is one parameter, cst_file, with 0% schema description coverage and a null default whose meaning is unexplained. The description never mentions the parameter at all, so it fails 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 (S-parameter reference impedance, ZRef), which is narrow enough to distinguish it from siblings like cst_read_s11_tool or cst_read_result_tool. It does not explicitly name or rule out those siblings, but the resource is precise.

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?

"Must match the impedance you intend" implies the workflow context (use the returned ZRef to align with your simulation intent), but it never states when to call this versus alternatives or any prerequisite for the call. Usage is inferred rather than directed.

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