Two-port (amplifier) stability analysis

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it lists the full output set and explains that a Touchstone file without a frequency triggers a full-file K/μ sweep and stable-range extraction.

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?

Three tightly structured sentences: the first front-loads the computed outputs, the second covers the Touchstone-sweep behavior, and the third gives the design-stage usage cue. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description successfully explains the return contents (K/μ table, stable frequency ranges, stability circles and their stable side). The nested input schema is fully described and the description supplies the design-workflow context, leaving nothing material missing 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents parameters thoroughly. The description's note about omitting frequency with a Touchstone file to sweep the whole file largely restates what the schema's frequency field already says, adding little new semantics.

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 states the exact computed quantities—Rollett K, |Δ|, Edwards-Sinsky μ and μ', unconditional-stability verdict, and source/load stability circles with stable side. This is a specific verb+resource statement that clearly separates the tool from siblings like gain_circles and noise_circles.

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?

It gives a clear when-to-use instruction: 'Use before designing any amplifier matching network to know which source/load impedances are safe.' No explicit when-not or named alternatives are provided, but the context is unambiguous.

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