cst_matching_l_network

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the single most important behavioral trait: this is a pure offline calculation that does not touch the CST project or require a connection, so there are no side effects on session state. It omits failure behavior (e.g., what happens when the impedances are not matchable) and whether the result is just values or a ready-made network.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the computation, supported topologies, and the offline note. Every sentence is relevant; the last two could be merged into one, which is the only slack.

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 6-parameter (3 required) computation tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent enough: it names the inputs conceptually, names the outputs (L and C values), and notes the topology options and the offline nature. It does not say what the return structure looks like or how it signals an unrealizable match, but that is a minor gap for a deterministic calculator.

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 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter including defaults and the topology enum. The description only restates that lowpass/highpass topologies exist, which duplicates the enum, and adds no unit or constraint guidance beyond the 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 ('Design an L-section impedance matching network') and immediately says what it computes (inductor and capacitor values from source/load impedance at a frequency). The 'L-section' qualifier implicitly separates it from the pi/T/stub/quarter-wave siblings, though it never names them.

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?

'Pure Python computation. No CST connection needed.' establishes a useful precondition (callable without a CST session or license) but says nothing about when to choose this topology over cst_matching_pi_network, cst_matching_t_network, cst_matching_stub, or cst_matching_quarter_wave. Usage context is implied rather than routed.

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