engineering.opamp_gain

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

Beyond readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses the idealized model's limits (no finite open-loop gain, bandwidth, or saturation voltage), the unit of the resistances (Ω, positive Decimal strings), and that the returned gain is a linear ratio rather than dB. These are exactly the assumptions an agent could otherwise get wrong.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and formulas, then units, then the misuse caveat. Nothing is repeated from the schema and every clause adds information the agent needs.

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 need not describe return values, and it covers everything else: formulas per configuration, parameter types and units, gain vs dB, and the non-ideal effects excluded. Nothing required 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 coverage is 0% and configuration has no enum, so the description carries the full burden — and it does: it enumerates the two valid configuration values with their formulas and defines both resistance parameters as positive Decimal strings in ohms. No parameter meaning is left ambiguous.

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 (closed-loop voltage gain of an ideal op-amp) and gives the exact formula per configuration, so an agent knows precisely what is computed. The 'ideal' qualifier and the explicit dB disclaimer separate it from engineering.db_convert and from any real-device gain 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 tells the agent to pick configuration='inverting' vs 'non_inverting' and to route unit conversion through db_convert, and it warns that finite open-loop gain, bandwidth and saturation are out of scope. It stops short of naming a specific sibling tool to use when those non-ideal effects matter, so there is room above a 4.

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