engineering.inductor_combine

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and closed-world behavior, so the description does not need to repeat safety traits. It adds useful behavioral assumptions: mutual inductance is ignored, input values must be positive Decimal strings, at least one inductor is required, and the result is in the same unit as the input.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and formulas, followed by input constraints and a high-value misuse warning. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the formulas, parameter formats, unit preservation, mutual-inductance assumption, and the most likely misuse case, leaving nothing essential unspecified.

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. It defines topology values ('series' / 'parallel') with formulas and specifies that inductors are positive Decimal strings in henries with at least one entry, fully compensating for the bare 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 ('인덕터 여러 개의 합성 인덕턴스를 구한다') and gives the exact formulas for both topologies. The capacitor warning also distinguishes it from the sibling engineering.capacitor_combine.

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?

Clearly implies when to use it by giving the series/parallel formulas and explicitly warns that capacitors use the opposite formulas, steering the agent toward capacitor_combine. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions beyond that warning.

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