chromatic-dispersion

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It notes 'Pure math — instant, zero API calls,' which informs about reliability and speed. It also lists the computed quantities, but does not detal side effects or constraints beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Two sentences that are front-loaded with the main verb ('computes') and resources. No redundant information; every sentence contributes meaning.

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 output schema, the description lacks details on the return structure (e.g., units format for accumulated dispersion, how sweep results are returned). For a calculator with 4 parameters, more explicit output description would enhance completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by mentioning fiber type examples (SMF-28, NZDSF, etc.) and the sweep options (C-band, L-band, custom), but it does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema descriptions.

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 is a 'fiber optic chromatic dispersion calculator' that computes specific metrics like dispersion coefficient, accumulated dispersion, and dispersion slope for listed fiber types. It is specific and distinct from the long list of sibling tools, which are unrelated.

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 explicitly lists use cases: 'optical network design, DWDM link budget, and dispersion compensation planning.' It does not state when not to use it or compare to alternatives, but the niche application is clear enough.

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