jlcpcb_pcb_impedance_template_list

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

The description mentions the authentication requirement ('Requires API credentials'), which is a key behavioral constraint. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or has side effects, nor does it describe response format or rate limits. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, and this is only partially met.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes necessary auth context. Every word adds value, and there is no wasted text.

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 simplicity of the tool (one optional filter object, no output schema), the description is largely sufficient. It includes the purpose, example filter parameters, and auth requirement. It could be more complete by describing the response format or clarifying read-only behavior, but it covers the essential context for selection and invocation.

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 input schema describes 'params' as an optional filter object with examples (stencilLayer, cuprumThickness, plateType), and the tool description repeats these same examples. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('list impedance template settings') and specifies the inputs ('given stackup parameters') with concrete examples. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on impedance templates, a unique resource among the many PCB-related tools.

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 indicates when to use the tool: when you have stackup parameters and need impedance template settings. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over other PCB tools.

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