engineering.resistor_color_code

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

The annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds useful behavior: case and whitespace normalization, the unsupported 6-band case, and the direction-sensitivity caveat.

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 structure is three tight sentences, with purpose first, then the input contract, then the misuse warnings. No sentence repeats what the schema or annotations already state.

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 return values need not be restated, and the input contract is complete. The only gap is the undocumented behavior for an invalid color name or an incorrect band count (whether it errors or is rejected).

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?

The schema coverage is 0%: 'bands' is an untyped array with no item description. The description fully compensates by listing every valid color name and specifying the positional meaning of each band for both 4-band and 5-band layouts.

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 names a specific verb and resource (decoding a 4-band/5-band resistor color code) and states exactly what it returns (resistance in Ω and tolerance in %). It is clearly distinct from the sibling tools such as resistor_series and resistor_parallel, which combine resistances rather than decode the colors.

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 gives the explicit 'when not to use' case (6-band with temperature coefficient is unsupported) and warns that a reversed reading direction yields a wrong value. What is missing is a comparison with the sibling tools, so there is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over engineering.resistor_series.

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