engineering.thevenin_equivalent

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and closed-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful domain behavior beyond that: inputs must be Decimal strings, short_circuit_current must be greater than zero, and the degenerate no-independent-source case silently yields R_th=0.

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 dense sentences: purpose and formula first, then input format, then output, then the misuse caution. No padding; every sentence provides actionable information.

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?

For a two-parameter calculator with an output schema, this covers inputs, units, constraints, formula, return names, and the key edge case. Nothing needed to invoke 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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does: open_circuit_voltage is in volts, short_circuit_current is in amps and must be >0, and both are Decimal strings. It also defines how the parameters combine mathematically.

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 ('테브난 등가 회로를 구한다' / compute Thevenin equivalent) and immediately gives the defining formulas V_th=V_oc and R_th=V_oc/I_sc. This clearly separates it from sibling tools such as engineering.norton_equivalent or resistor combination tools.

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?

Provides a clear when-not condition: circuits without independent sources have V_oc=0, so R_th must instead be found by resistor combination. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the applicability boundary is concrete enough for correct tool selection.

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