measure_bandwidth

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

The annotations already indicate the tool is read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds behavioral context about the -3dB default and custom threshold levels, but it does not mention what happens if no AC analysis has been run or the output format (e.g., returns a frequency value). This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 description is concise, consisting of two clear sentences with no redundant information. It front-loads the core purpose and adds a specific detail about the default threshold.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of annotations covering safety, the description explains the measurement method and default threshold. However, it does not explicitly state the prerequisite (that an AC analysis must have been run) or the return value, which are important for correct invocation.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the threshold_db parameter (default -3dB, custom levels) but does not describe circuit_id beyond its name. This partial coverage is acceptable but leaves room for improvement.

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 clearly states the tool measures bandwidth (cutoff frequency) of an AC analysis result, with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish it from sibling tools like measure_gain or measure_power, which could lead to confusion about when to use this tool over others.

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 implies that the tool should be used after an AC analysis, but it does not explicitly state prerequisites, when to use this tool versus alternatives, or when not to use it. No exclusions or sibling differentiation is provided.

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