engineering.rc_filter_cutoff

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

The annotations already cover safety: readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds context that the annotations do not provide: filter_type does not change the result and is returned unchanged, and the tool applies only to the ideal first-order case. It still does not say what happens on invalid input or how the output is rounded.

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 compact sentences that are ordered by usefulness: the operation and its formula first, then the parameter constraints, then the caution about misuse. 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?

An output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain the return values. Combined with annotations and the formula, the description covers domain constraints, parameter meaning, and misuse limits. Only the edge-case behavior (invalid or zero input) is left out.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description is responsible for documenting all parameters, and it does: resistance in ohms and capacitance in farads, both as positive Decimal strings. It also supplies the enum values for filter_type ('low_pass'/'high_pass') even though the schema has no enum and does not indicate the default; it also says filter_type does not affect the result.

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 operation (the -3 dB cutoff frequency) and the resource (a first-order RC filter), and gives the closed-form expression fc=1/(2πRC) in Hz. Because it explicitly limits the scope to first-order filters, it is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools such as lc_resonant_frequency and first_order_response.

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 gives an explicit when-not-to-use rule ('not suitable for 2nd-order or higher filters, or loaded filters') and imposes a validity condition (values must be greater than 0). It does not, however, point to a specific alternative tool, such as a second-order or Bode tool, that should be used instead.

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