calculate_capacitive_reactance

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

Without annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: the formula, the inverse relationship with frequency, and examples of typical values. It sufficiently conveys that the tool performs a pure calculation without side effects. Slightly more detail on return format would improve transparency, but it is adequate.

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 highly concise: three short paragraphs covering purpose, formula, explanation, and examples. Information is front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every sentence adds value without 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 presence of an output schema (as indicated by context signals), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the essential calculation behavior, formula, and examples. However, it could briefly mention the typical context (AC circuits) to tie the tool to common use cases.

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 parameters are well-documented. The description adds value by providing the formula and concrete examples (e.g., 1µF at 1kHz) that illustrate how parameters map to the calculation. This extra context enriches understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 the tool calculates capacitive reactance at a given frequency using the formula. It provides a specific verb ('calculate') and resource ('capacitive reactance'). While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like `calculate_rc_time_constant`, the unique formula and behavior make it clear.

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 explains what the tool does but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as `calculate_rc_time_constant` or `suggest_capacitor_for_filter`. Usage is implied through the definition, but no exclusionary criteria or prerequisites are stated.

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