Read 1D CST result tree items like S-parameters, efficiency, power, or convergence by tree path, with optional frequency and point limits.
Read a 1D result tree item (S-parameters, efficiency, power, convergence).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| module | No | 3d | |
| cst_file | No | ||
| tree_path | Yes | ||
| max_points | No | ||
| at_frequency | No |
| 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 burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Read' implies a non-mutating operation, but the description says nothing about permissions, side effects, error conditions, or other operational constraints.
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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and easy to parse, though its brevity leaves important details unstated.
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. However, with five input parameters at 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description is too sparse to make the tool safely and unambiguously callable.
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%, with five parameters including tree_path, module, cst_file, max_points, and at_frequency. The description mentions none of these parameters or their meaning, so it does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.
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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Read a 1D result tree item' and names example result types. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like cst_read_s11_tool or cst_list_results_tool.
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?
The description provides no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It only implies that the tool retrieves result data, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is preferable to cst_read_s11_tool or cst_list_results_tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.