calculate_resonant_frequency

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It explains the physics and provides examples, but does not describe the output format or what the tool returns (e.g., frequency in Hz). The existence of an output schema mitigates this somewhat, but the description misses the chance to add that context.

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 well-structured: formula, bullet points on resonance properties, and examples. It is concise but could be slightly more focused on tool behavior (e.g., removing the physics explanation if the agent only needs to know inputs/outputs).

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 and the presence of a complete input and output schema, the description provides adequate context about when resonance matters and how to interpret results. It lacks explicit mention of the output value, but the schema completes that gap. Sibling tools are listed, but no cross-referencing is added.

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% with good descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by providing the formula relating them and concrete examples (1mH+1nF → 159kHz), which helps users understand units and scale. This goes beyond the schema's basic type and range.

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 LC resonant frequency, provides the formula f = 1/(2π√(LC)), and explains resonance behavior. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., calculate_capacitive_reactance) by focusing on a different physical quantity.

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 implies usage (tuned circuits, filters, oscillators) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like calculate_capacitive_reactance or calculate_rc_time_constant. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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