Reads S11 from CST results and reports the value in dB at a chosen target frequency for acceptance testing.
Read S11 and report it in dB at a target frequency (the usual acceptance check).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cst_file | No | ||
| tree_path | No | 1D Results\S-Parameters\S1,1 | |
| target_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 behavioral burden. It implies a read-only operation and specifies the output unit (dB), but it does not disclose prerequisites such as whether a project must be open, error behavior, or any side effects.
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 states the action, the result, and the usage context compactly.
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 format does not need explanation in the description. However, with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and three parameters, the description is somewhat under-informative about prerequisites and the roles of cst_file and tree_path.
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%, so the description must compensate for missing parameter documentation. It explains target_frequency by stating the result is reported in dB at a target frequency, but it does not clarify cst_file or tree_path, leaving two of three parameters without meaningful semantic support.
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 states a specific verb and resource: read S11 and report it in dB at a target frequency. This clearly tells an agent what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as cst_read_result_tool or cst_read_port_info_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 phrase 'the usual acceptance check' gives implied usage context, indicating this is a common validation operation. However, it does not specify when to use this instead of alternatives, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.