rf_line_model

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It honestly reveals that this is a closed-form approximation and explicitly warns that it is not accurate enough to finalize a design. This gives an agent useful expectations about fidelity and its role in the larger pipeline.

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 compact, well-ordered, and free of filler. It leads with the main outputs, then explains the two invocation modes, and ends with an important accuracy caveat. Every sentence adds value.

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 an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers core invocation modes and accuracy context. Minor gaps remain around what happens when both width_mm and z0 are supplied or neither is supplied, and valid laminate values are not explained, but the description is broadly sufficient for an agent to select and use the tool.

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 clearly explains the central width_mm/z0 analysis-vs-synthesis relationship, but it does not describe f0_ghz, gap_mm, or laminate beyond what their names and defaults imply. The parameter names are fairly self-explanatory, but the description leaves some semantic burden on the schema.

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 identifies the tool's domain (Grounded-CPW impedance, effective permittivity, wavelength) and its two operation modes: analyse with width_mm and synthesise with z0. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly framing it as the closed-form model the optimizer seeds from, not a full solver or optimizer.

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 guidance on when it should be used: it is accurate enough to start from but not accurate enough to finish on, which implies it is for initial estimates rather than final design. It also tells users when to provide width_mm versus z0. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when to prefer them.

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