Modbus RTU Timing Calculator

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

The description adds significant behavioral details beyond what annotations provide. It explains the spec formula (11 bits/char), the two regimes (fixed above 19200 baud, computed below), and gives example outputs. Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent, and the description reinforces this with clear, non-mutating behavior.

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 very concise, covering the purpose, spec details, parameters, return structure, and an example in just three sentences. It is front-loaded with the main action and well-organized for quick comprehension.

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 that the tool has only one parameter, a simple output schema, and annotations fully declaring its nature, the description is complete. It includes the return structure and an example, ensuring the agent has all necessary information to invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema already describes the 'baud' parameter as integer bit/s. The description adds meaning by defining what baud is used for (timing calculation), explaining the spec relationship, and giving example conversions (e.g., 9600 baud yields specific microsecond values). This context enhances the schema's information.

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 that the tool calculates Modbus RTU inter-character (t1.5) and inter-frame (t3.5) silence times, with specific reference to the spec (11 bits/char) and baud rate regimes. It distinguishes itself clearly from sibling calculator tools by specifying the exact protocol and timing parameters.

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 provides clear context for usage: it is for Modbus RTU timing calculations. Although it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or compare with other sibling calculators, the naming and specifics make it obvious when to apply it. No exclusion conditions are given, but it is sufficiently clear for intent.

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