engineering.first_order_response

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real behavioral detail: the exponential term is computed to 30 significant digits and the domain constraints τ>0 and t≥0 are stated. Return values are also summarized, though that partially overlaps the output schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the formula, then parameters, then return values, then the misuse caveat — every sentence adds information and there is 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?

For a 4-parameter read-only computation with an output schema, the description supplies everything needed: the governing equation, parameter meanings and constraints, precision behavior, return fields, and the boundary of applicability. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 carries the full burden and does so completely: it names each of the four parameters (gain K, time_constant τ, input_step u, time t), gives units (seconds) and domain bounds (τ>0, t≥0), and specifies they are Decimal strings. This fully compensates for the empty schema.

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 and resource (step response of a first-order system) and gives the exact transfer function G(s)=K/(τs+1) and response formula y(t)=K·u·(1−exp(−t/τ)). The misuse note explicitly separates it from second-order systems, so an agent can distinguish it from the sibling engineering.second_order_response without opening either schema.

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 '오용 주의' line gives explicit when-not guidance: not for second-order-or-higher systems and not for impulse responses. It does not name the alternative tool (e.g. engineering.second_order_response) by name, but the exclusion is concrete and actionable.

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