noise_integral

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond those: the sqrt(∫ density² df) calculation, the LTspice Ctrl-click equivalence, and the fact that it reports the integrated band and sample count. This goes well beyond what the annotations provide.

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 four concise sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. The formula, output summary, and SNR caveat each add distinct value; there is no filler or redundancy.

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 full input-schema coverage, the output schema, and the rich annotations, the description is complete enough. It explains the mathematical behavior, what the tool reports, and what it intentionally leaves out, which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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%, and all 8 parameters already have descriptive text. The tool description adds high-level context about band and trace semantics, but it does not add new per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and target: 'Integrate a .noise spectral density to a total RMS noise over a band.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling measurement/plotting tools by focusing on RMS noise integration, and even states the exact formula used.

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 clear usage context (banded integration of .noise spectral density) and an explicit non-goal ('Noise figure / SNR are left to you'), but it does not name an alternative tool or provide direct when-not-to-use guidance beyond that.

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