rf_make_spec

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that limit values mean 'at or below' and that requirement_text is retained for traceability in the report. However, it does not clarify whether the spec is returned, saved via save_to, or validated, leaving some side-effect behavior implicit.

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?

Three sentences carry real signal: purpose, limit convention, and traceability. No filler; the distinguishing fact that every downstream tool reads this spec is front-loaded.

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 output schema reduces the need to describe return values, and the most subtle parameter semantics are covered. Gaps remain around side effects (save_to behavior), the meaning of several un-described parameters, and explicit when-not-to-use guidance, so the definition is adequate but not fully complete.

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 meaning of s11_db and isolation_db as negative-dB max limits, and it explains requirement_text's role in the report. Most of the other 12 parameters, such as n_way, bandwidth_frac, excess_loss_db, and save_to, still lack descriptive semantics beyond their titles and defaults.

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 uses a concrete verb ('Turn') and identifies both the input ('requirement') and output ('structured spec'). 'Everything else reads' clearly positions this tool upstream of siblings like rf_design, rf_synthesize, and rf_solve, so an agent can distinguish it without opening any other tool definition.

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?

It states the context: when you have a requirement and need the canonical spec that all downstream tools consume. The pipeline positioning is clear, though it does not explicitly name when-not-to-use alternatives or list exclusion cases.

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