waveguide_cutoff

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool is exact/closed-form, returns regime (propagating/evanescent), k, β, λ_g when freq_ghz is given, and that it is gated against the FDTD solver. It doesn't discuss error handling, rate limits, or assumptions beyond the standard formulas.

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 dense and front-loads the core purpose, then provides formulas, parameter meanings, and return fields. It is longer than typical but every sentence adds value for a physics-heavy tool. A small deduction for the formula notation potentially being intimidating without 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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description fully specifies the math, parameter semantics, and the exact list of returned fields. It leaves little ambiguity for an agent to construct a correct call and interpret the result.

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 must compensate. It does: it defines `a_mm` as broad wall, `b_mm` as narrow wall (default a/2, WR convention), `mode` as 'TE<m><n>'/'TM<m><n>', and `freq_ghz` as an optional probe that triggers extra return fields (regime, k, β, λ_g). This is substantially more informative than the bare parameter names.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Exact rectangular-waveguide cutoff frequency') and clarifies the scope ('NO solver', closed-form). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling `em_fullwave_submit` by naming it as the FDTD solve it is gated against.

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?

Makes clear this is the analytic twin to `em_fullwave_submit` and that an FDTD drive straddling f_c must collapse below it. However, it doesn't state when NOT to use this tool or what other alternatives exist for electromagnetic analysis among the many EM siblings (em_skin_depth, em_field, etc.).

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