calculate_impedance

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

The description discloses an important behavioral trait: all distances are in millimetres regardless of the document's Units attribute. This is beyond what the schema or annotations (none provided) convey. However, 'explicit assumptions' is vague and does not detail the analytical model or limitations, so it is not a perfect disclosure.

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 two sentences with no filler. The key unit rule is front-loaded in the second sentence, and every word contributes to purpose or behavioral context.

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?

The tool has 9 parameters and an output schema, but the description provides only the core purpose and the unit rule. It lacks usage guidance and parameter semantics, which are partly mitigated by self-explanatory parameter names and the presence of an output schema. Still, the description is adequate for a simple calculation but not comprehensive.

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 0%, so the description should compensate by explaining parameters. It only mentions units, which is already implied by the '_mm' suffix on many parameter names. There is no explanation of optional parameters like target_ohm, tolerance_ohm, or frequency_hz, or how structure enum values differ.

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 a specific action ('Calculate') and a resource ('impedance'), with a modifier 'preliminary analytical' that sets expectations. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like analyze_controlled_impedance, but the name and phrasing make the primary purpose evident.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as suggest_trace_geometry_for_impedance or analyze_differential_pair. There is no mention of preferred scenarios, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.

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