SPI Timing Calculator

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) are consistent. Description adds concrete behavior: computes three specific timing values, non-destructive, and returns structured data. Example solidifies understanding.

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?

Two short sentences plus an example. Every element is essential: what it does, arguments, default, return format, and a concrete example. No wasted words.

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 has an output schema (context signal), the description adequately covers inputs, outputs, and usage. For a simple calculator tool, this is complete and self-contained.

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?

Input schema covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description goes beyond by showing a real example (10 MHz, 8 bits yields specific results), which clarifies the meaning and expected outputs.

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?

Clear verb (calculate) and resource (SPI timing) in title and description. Distinguishes from sibling timing tools by specifying 'SPI' and listing exact computed outputs (bit period, frame time, throughput).

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternatives guidance. While the tool is self-explanatory for SPI timing, it doesn't mention not to use it for other protocols or compare to siblings like 'embedcalc_i2c_timing'.

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