engineering.thermal_resistance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and closed-world, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description usefully adds validation constraints (all values > 0, same unit, no zero resistance) and the no-rounding / 50-significant-digit precision guarantee, which is meaningful behavioral context for a compute tool.

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?

Five short sentences, each carrying distinct information: purpose, formulas per topology, input format, edge-case exclusions, and precision. Front-loaded with the purpose and formulas, zero 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 return values need no explanation. For a two-parameter numeric tool, the description covers purpose, both formula branches, input validation, forbidden inputs, decomposition strategy and precision — 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% and neither parameter has an enum, yet the description fully specifies the legal values of topology ('series' / 'parallel') with their formulas, and documents resistances as a list of numeric strings with cardinality, sign, unit-consistency and zero-exclusion constraints. This compensates completely 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 ('열저항 K/W 를 합성한다') and immediately supplies the exact formulas for both topologies, so the agent knows precisely what computation happens. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling resistor_series/resistor_parallel style tools by handling both topologies through one parameter.

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?

Explicitly states that mixed series/parallel circuits must be decomposed and called in stages, and that zero resistance cannot be supplied — real when-to-use/when-not-to guidance. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling tool by name, so it is not a full 5.

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