calculate_rc_time_constant

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

No annotations are provided, but the description fully discloses the behavior: it is a pure mathematical calculation with no side effects. The description explains the formula, the physical meaning of the result (charging/discharging percentages), and includes examples, which is sufficient transparency for a calculation tool.

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 concise and well-structured: it starts with the formula, explains the meaning of the time constant in bullet points, and gives three clear examples. Every sentence is informative, with no redundancy or unnecessary content.

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 tool's simplicity (two numeric inputs, no nested objects, output schema exists), the description is complete. It covers the formula, interpretation of the result, and multiple examples, which is sufficient for both understanding and using the 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?

The schema already specifies the parameters with descriptions and units. The description adds value by providing concrete examples (e.g., 10kΩ + 100µF → τ = 1 second) and clarifying the meaning of the units, which enhances understanding beyond 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 states the tool calculates the RC time constant using the formula τ = R × C, with a specific verb ('Calculate') and resource ('RC circuit time constant'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like calculate_capacitive_reactance and calculate_resonant_frequency by focusing solely on the time constant.

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?

While the description explains the meaning of the time constant and provides examples, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when other circuit calculations are needed). No 'when not to use' or comparison with siblings is provided.

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