check_short_circuit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: k is sourced from configured data, the model assumes specific initial/final conductor temperatures, the default time is not a rating, and the result is not a standalone approval. It omits any note on what the check returns or how it fails, but the assumptions and limits are well covered.

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 formula is front-loaded and each subsequent sentence adds a distinct constraint (input units/range, default assumption, k source, approval limit). It is dense with domain notation but has no filler.

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 described, and the description supplies the assumption context, input semantics and scope limits an agent needs. The only real gap is the unexplained insulation/material/size parameters.

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. It explains fault_current_ka, fault_time_s (with its valid range and default caveat) and the origin of k, and S is implied by the formula, but size_mm2, insulation and conductor_material are never explained, leaving half the parameters to inference.

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 precise verb and resource ('Check experimental adiabatic thermal withstand') and pins it to a concrete formula (I^2*t <= k^2*S^2), which unambiguously separates it from siblings like check_loop_impedance or calculate_derating.

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?

It tells the agent what to supply (fault current in kA, clearing time in seconds) and warns that the 0.1 s default is an assumption rather than a device rating, plus a scope caveat that this check alone does not approve a conductor. It never names an alternative tool or an explicit when-not-to-use, so it stops short of a 5.

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