EM Skin Depth

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses the governing formula, field decay behavior, the ~95% heating depth heuristic, and the exact return keys. It also transparently indicates the closed-form nature of the calculation. No contradictions with annotations.

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 formula and 'NO solver' are front-loaded, immediately conveying what the tool does. The return list is necessary because there is no output schema, and the conductor-name list is useful. No filler sentences.

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 description covers the analytical formula, conductivity inputs, and all returned values, which matters because there is no output schema. However, it leaves minor ambiguity about the behavior when both conductivity_s_m and conductor are supplied or when neither is supplied, and it does not state explicit validity limits.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description explains conductivity sourcing (explicit conductivity_s_m or named conductor with examples) and the role of mu_r through the formula. It does not explicitly state precedence when both conductivity_s_m and conductor are provided, nor frequency units beyond the parameter name/title.

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 it computes exact AC skin depth with an explicit formula, and differentiates itself from solver-based sibling tools with '(NO solver)'. The list of returned values confirms the operation. This goes well beyond a restatement of the title.

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 analytical use by saying 'NO solver' and by showing how to specify conductivity via explicit value or conductor name, but it never explicitly names alternative tools or states when not to use this one. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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