mcp-pcb-emcopilot
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v0.4.2
- Disambiguation2/5
Many tools have overlapping or near-duplicate purposes, such as pcb_analyze_return_current vs pcb_analyze_return_current_density and pcb_calc_plane_resonance vs pcb_analyze_cavity_resonance. Multiple report generators and EMI prediction tools further blur the boundaries, making misselection likely.
Naming Consistency3/5The pcb_<verb>_<noun> pattern is largely consistent and readable, but the verb choice is not standardized—calc, analyze, predict, estimate, and compute are used interchangeably for similar analytical tasks. A few outliers like pcb_three_way_cross_reference and pcb_calc_ibis_eye break the pattern.
Tool Count1/5With 131 tools, the server is extremely over-scoped. Even for a complex PCB design review domain, this count far exceeds what an agent can effectively evaluate and select from, indicating a lack of curation.
Completeness4/5The tool set covers a remarkably broad range of PCB design review tasks, including parsing, electrical and thermal analysis, EMC/EMI prediction, 3D checks, cross-referencing, reporting, and regulatory lookup. Some stubs and missing operations exist, but overall the surface is thoroughly comprehensive.
Average 3.4/5 across 131 of 131 tools scored. Lowest: 1.3/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 24 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under AGPL 3.0.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add
glama.jsonto the root of your repository:{ "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json", "maintainers": [ "your-github-username" ] }Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.
How to sync the server with GitHub?
Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.
To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.
How is the quality score calculated?
The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).
Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.
Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).
Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.
Tool Scores
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only gives a vague action. It does not state whether the tool performs read-only analysis, modifies data, what inputs are essential, or what the output will be.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It omits essential details about the tool's behavior and parameters, so brevity comes at the cost of usability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This tool appears to perform a complex analysis, yet the description is extremely vague. With no output schema, no annotations, and partial parameter documentation, an agent cannot determine what the tool returns or how to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers 50% of parameters, but the description adds no meaning for any parameter. It fails to explain how capacitor values, frequency, or target impedance relate to the analysis, and leaves undocumented parameters without context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Analyze decoupling capacitor placement,' which gives a verb and resource, but 'analyze' is generic and the specific nature of the analysis is unclear. It does not distinguish this tool from sibling pcb_analyze_decoupling_per_ic, which appears to be a more specific variant.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pcb_analyze_decoupling_per_ic or pcb_analyze_pdn. There are no prerequisites, context, or exclusions mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries a heavy burden, but it only says 'Analyze PCIe lane routing,' which implies a read-only analysis without stating any behavioral specifics such as what is returned, whether any board data is required, or what checks are performed. It adds little beyond the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short (5 words) but under-specified rather than appropriately concise. The single sentence does not earn its place because it adds minimal value over the tool name and does not cover essential details for a tool with five parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, no annotations, and a complex domain with five parameters and many PCIe-related siblings. The description does not explain what the analysis produces, what inputs mean, or how it differs from validation tools. It is completely inadequate for reliable agent selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description adds no information about the five parameters. It does not mention pcie_gen, lane_count, trace_length_mm, insertion_loss_db, or differential_impedance_ohm, nor does it explain their role in the analysis. The schema alone is only somewhat self-documenting, so the description must compensate but fails to.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Analyze' and names the resource 'PCIe lane routing', but 'analyze' is generic and does not specify what aspects of lane routing are examined (e.g., impedance, length matching, crosstalk). It does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like pcb_validate_pcie_lanes or pcb_calc_pcie_link_budget, so the purpose remains vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It gives no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, so an agent cannot determine if this is the right tool for a given PCIe analysis task.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails to provide any. It merely says 'Analyze' without indicating the nature of the analysis, expected outputs, assumptions, or any limitations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise in length but under-specified in substance. It omits critical information, making it more an example of under-specification than effective conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, no annotations, and the description provides only a minimal statement. An agent has no information about what the tool returns, what inputs are necessary beyond the schema names, or how this analysis fits into a broader EMI review workflow.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 25% (only cable_type has a description). The description does not mention cable_spacing_mm, parallel_length_mm, or frequency_mhz at all, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage and leaving the required inputs unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Analyze' and a clear resource 'cable-to-cable coupling' with an explicit EMI purpose. While it does not explicitly differentiate from closely related siblings such as pcb_analyze_crosstalk or pcb_analyze_common_mode, the focus on cable-to-cable coupling is reasonably distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent without criteria for selecting this over similar EMI or crosstalk analysis tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It merely says 'analyze' without stating whether this is a read-only calculation, what assumptions are made, how results are presented, or any side effects. This is a significant transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only one sentence, which is overly terse. It lacks the minimal detail needed to understand the tool's function, making it under-specification rather than concise. There is no structured information beyond a single vague clause.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the 4-parameter schema, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It does not explain the model, expected inputs, output format, or any caveats, making the tool essentially unusable based on the description alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention or explain any of the four parameters. Although parameter names like 'power_watts' and 'copper_area_mm2' are somewhat self-explanatory, the description fails to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation, leaving the agent without critical context about units, relationships, or defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Analyze copper area heat spreading' clearly uses the verb 'analyze' with the resource 'copper area heat spreading', which distinguishes it from other PCB analysis tools focused on different phenomena. However, it lacks specificity about the exact analysis or output, making it slightly vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives such as pcb_analyze_thermal or pcb_analyze_thermal_via. It does not state conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving usage context entirely implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention whether this is a read-only analysis, what data it requires, what it returns, or any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but under-specifies the tool's functionality. While it avoids verbosity, it does not provide enough detail to be useful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, this tool description is inadequate for an agent to understand what the tool does, what parameters mean, and what to expect in return.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema defines three parameters with 0% coverage, and the description does not explain the meaning or usage of speed, pair_skew_ps, or trace_length_mm. It entirely fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Analyze' and resource 'Ethernet PHY routing,' clearly stating the tool's focus. However, it does not distinguish this tool from similar analysis tools like pcb_analyze_pcie or pcb_analyze_usb, and it lacks details on what specific aspects are analyzed.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only repeats the tool's name ('Analyze solder paste stencil design') without describing what the analysis entails, what inputs are required, what outputs are produced, or any side effects. There is no added behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The single sentence is nearly a tautology and does not add substantive information. It does not front-load any useful details beyond what the name already implies.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 4 parameters (3 required), no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not explain what analysis is performed, how the inputs are used, what results the user can expect, or any assumptions. It is wholly inadequate for a tool with this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description gives no explanation of the parameters (pad_width_mm, pad_length_mm, pitch_mm, stencil_thickness_mm). While the parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description fails to clarify units, relationships, or how they should be provided, leaving the user without additional meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Analyze' with the resource 'solder paste stencil design', clearly indicating the tool's domain. While 'analyze' is generic, the resource is specific enough to distinguish it from many sibling tools. However, it does not detail the type of analysis or output, so it lacks full differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no context for why a user would choose it. The description only states what it does, not when or how to apply it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Analyze via electrical characteristics.' This reveals nothing about whether the operation is read-only, what outputs are produced, how calculations are performed, or any limitations. It is essentially a rephrasing of the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only four words, which is extremely concise but also under-specified. For a tool with six required parameters, this brevity is underspecification rather than effective conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has six required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description provides only a vague statement about analyzing via electrical characteristics. It fails to explain what the tool computes, what the inputs mean, or what the user can expect as a result. This is grossly inadequate for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the six undocumented parameters. It does not explain any parameter names, units, or how they relate to the analysis. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool analyzes via electrical characteristics, distinguishing it from sibling tools like pcb_calc_via_stitching or pcb_analyze_current_loop. However, it does not specify which electrical characteristics (e.g., impedance, capacitance) are computed, making the scope somewhat broad.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, use cases, or comparisons with other analysis tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior such as side effects, permissions, or return format. It only says 'analyze,' implying a read-only operation, but it does not state what the tool does with the inputs, what output is produced, or any constraints. This is a significant gap for a tool with no other metadata.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action. There is no wasted wording. However, it is almost too terse, but that is more a completeness issue than a structure issue, so the conciseness itself is good.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what 'assembly process considerations' means, what the output will be, how parameters map to the analysis, or any context that would help an agent decide and invoke the tool. This is far below the minimum viable for a five-parameter tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any of the five parameters (component_count, bga_count, smd_count, etc.). It provides no explanation of how these inputs influence the analysis or what relationships they have to assembly considerations. The agent must rely solely on parameter names, which is insufficient for correct usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states it analyzes 'board assembly process considerations,' which is a clear verb and resource, but the scope is vague and not differentiated from sibling tools like pcb_analyze_solder_paste or pcb_analyze_placement. It lacks specifics about what 'considerations' means or what the tool actually computes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or why one would choose this over related assembly-focused tools. The lack of context forces the agent to infer usage purely from the name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Analyze' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not state what calculations are performed, what inputs influence the analysis, whether anything is modified, or what the return value looks like. This is minimal disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, but it is under-specified. It omits essential details and therefore does not earn its place; it is more a placeholder than a useful description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This tool has 7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and is one of many similar analysis tools. The description remains a vague one-liner, giving no indication of what is computed, what constitutes 'quality,' or what the expected output is. It is completely inadequate for an agent to select and invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 29%, and the tool description does not mention any parameters. Parameter names like 'trace_width_mm' are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning about how they relate to 'routing quality' or how the analysis uses them. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses 'Analyze' as a verb and identifies the resource as 'differential pair routing quality,' which is a specific topic. However, 'routing quality' is vague and does not specify what aspects are analyzed (e.g., impedance, skew, spacing), and it does not clearly distinguish from sibling tools like pcb_calc_differential_impedance or pcb_analyze_mode_conversion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, despite the large number of similarly named analysis tools in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose what the tool actually does beyond its name. It does not state whether it is a read-only analysis, what inputs it expects, whether it modifies any state, or what kind of output it returns.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single under-specified sentence. While brief, it omits essential detail and reads as a tautological statement rather than a genuinely concise explanation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema or annotations, the description should explain what the analysis produces. It does not mention return values, recommendations, pass/fail criteria, or any other contextual information, leaving the tool's behavior largely mysterious.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers all 4 parameters with individual descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about how the parameters relate to the analysis or how they should be used.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear topic 'ESD protection' and an action 'Analyze', but it is vague about what the analysis entails. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like pcb_analyze_protection_circuits or pcb_analyze_emi_risk, which follow the same 'Analyze X' pattern.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention typical use cases, prerequisites, or scenarios where another analysis tool would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description alone should disclose behavior such as whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, and any requirements. It only says it analyzes placement, leaving the agent uninformed about side effects or result format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that is not redundant. However, it under-specifies the tool's capabilities, so brevity comes at the cost of usefulness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not provide enough context about expected inputs, output, or typical usage scenarios, making it incomplete for an AI agent to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters, but it mentions none of them. The parameter names give some hints, but their roles in the analysis and units are not clarified.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses 'Analyze' as a verb and identifies the resource as 'component placement', with the goal of 'manufacturability'. However, it doesn't specify what aspects of placement are analyzed (e.g., spacing, orientation) or what output is produced, making it indistinguishable from some sibling analysis tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus similar tools like pcb_analyze_assembly or pcb_analyze_tolerance. No context or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Analyze' with no detail about what actions are performed, whether the tool is read-only, what inputs are used, what outputs are produced, or any side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence without redundancy or filler. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the lack of any additional structured information (e.g., parameter hints or context) makes it slightly under-sized for a tool with five parameters, but this is more a completeness issue than a conciseness issue.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of DDR interface analysis, five parameters, low schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is critically incomplete. It does not explain what the analysis returns, which parameters are required for meaningful use, or how to interpret the available inputs. An agent would have no idea what to expect from invoking this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has very low coverage (20%), with only data_rate_mtps having a description. The tool description adds no parameter information at all, so it fails to compensate for the schema gaps. Users are left without meanings for fields like trace_length_mm, trace_impedance_ohm, and clock_to_data_skew_ps, and no explanation of how the required enum values map to analysis behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the verb ('Analyze') and the resource ('DDR memory interface routing'), which is specific enough to indicate the tool's domain. However, it does not distinguish this tool from closely related siblings like pcb_validate_ddr_topology or pcb_analyze_ddr_timing_budget, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools related to DDR, PCIe, USB, or other interface analyses. The description does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage purely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only states a vague analysis activity. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, what outputs are produced, what criteria are checked, or any side effects. This is a severe gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the purpose. However, it is under-specified, but that is captured more in completeness than conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a parameter-heavy analysis tool with no output schema and no annotations. The description provides no information about expected results, interpretation, or how the parameters influence the analysis. An agent cannot determine what to do with the tool's output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 20% (just input_voltage_v). The tool description does not explain how parameters like output_voltage_v, output_current_a, distance_to_load_mm, or switching_frequency_khz relate to the analysis. It adds no meaning beyond the parameter names themselves.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool's focus: analyzing VRM placement and routing. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pcb_analyze_pdn or pcb_analyze_placement by naming the specific resource (VRM), though the verb 'analyze' is generic.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many power-related siblings (e.g., pcb_analyze_pdn, pcb_analyze_power_topology), and the description does not clarify the intended use case or mention any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'analyze', which implies read-only, but provides no information about output format, side effects, required inputs, or limitations. This is a significant gap for an analysis tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is structurally concise. However, it is under-specified for a tool with four parameters and likely complex analysis, so the brevity does not adequately serve the agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema, no annotations, and a sparse input schema. The description provides no information about return values, analysis methodology, or use cases, making it inadequate for the agent to understand the tool's full behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is only 25% (topology has a description, board_size_mm, has_mixed_signal, and max_frequency_mhz lack descriptions). The tool description does not mention any parameters or add any meaning beyond the bare schema, failing to compensate for the low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Analyze grounding topology' clearly states the action and the target resource (grounding topology). However, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like pcb_analyze_return_paths or pcb_analyze_ground_stitch, so it lacks the specificity needed for full clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The single sentence gives no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on selecting this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explain what the analysis entails, whether it is a calculation, simulation, or review, what inputs are required, what outputs are produced, or any side effects. The one-line description is essentially a restatement of the tool name with no added behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. However, its extreme brevity means it omits necessary context, so while it is structurally concise, it is not fully effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema, no annotations, and four parameters, yet the description provides only a generic statement. It does not explain the analysis scope, the meaning of the parameters, the expected return value, or how it differs from the many similar PDN-related sibling tools. This is severely incomplete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not mention any parameters or add meaning beyond the schema. The schema already provides descriptions for 'ripple_percent' and 'target_impedance_mohm', but the two required parameters ('supply_voltage_v' and 'max_current_a') lack descriptions. Since the schema coverage is only 50%, the description should compensate but instead is silent about parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (analyze) and resource (power distribution network impedance), making the core purpose evident. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling tool 'pcb_calc_pdn_impedance' which appears to perform a nearly identical function, so it falls short of full differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pcb_calc_pdn_impedance, pcb_analyze_decoupling, or pcb_analyze_vrm. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for appropriate selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'analyze timing margins' without explaining what inputs do, what the output is, whether it's a calculation or simulation, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded, but it is under-specified. While it is a complete sentence and avoids verbosity, its brevity hurts utility for such a complex tool with 6 required parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (6 required params, no annotations, no output schema) and numerous closely related siblings, the description is severely incomplete. It provides no return value expectations, no parameter relationships, and no usage scenario, making it inadequate for correct selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to any of the 6 parameters. It does not mention trace length, data rate, setup/hold times, or how they relate to timing margins, so the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool analyzes timing margins for high-speed signals, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like pcb_analyze_ddr_timing_budget or pcb_analyze_length_matching, which also relate to timing analysis.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description gives no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess which timing analysis tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'Analyze USB routing' with no mention of what checks are performed, whether it is read-only, what output is returned, or any side effects/limitations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded, but at four words it is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks essential context an agent needs, so the brevity does not serve the tool's usability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, no annotations, and three parameters, the description should explain what the analysis entails, what results are returned, and how inputs affect the outcome. None of this is provided, making the tool description inadequate for correct invocation and interpretation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any parameters. While parameter names (usb_version, trace_length_mm, differential_impedance_ohm) are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema and fails to clarify how these parameters are used in the analysis.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Analyze USB routing' uses a specific verb ('analyze') and a specific resource ('USB routing'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that analyze other protocols like PCIe or Ethernet. It conveys exactly what the tool does at a high level.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare with sibling analysis tools, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and input schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden but only states the purpose. It doesn't reveal what 'analysis' produces, whether the operation is read-only, what the return value looks like, or any assumptions—a major gap for a tool with no output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The one-sentence description is front-loaded and contains no fluff. However, the brevity reflects under-specification rather than purposeful conciseness for a 5-parameter tool with no other documentation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a large sibling set, the description is incomplete. It doesn't clarify return values, usage context, or how it differs from similar analysis tools, leaving the agent without enough information to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it adds no parameter-level meaning. While names like via_count and via_diameter_mm are self-explanatory, copper_fill_percent and board_thickness_mm lack context, and the description doesn't explain how parameters influence the analysis.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies a specific resource (thermal via array) and the goal (heat dissipation), clearly stating what the tool does. However, the verb 'analyze' is generic, and it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like pcb_analyze_thermal or pcb_calc_via_stitching.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus pcb_calc_via_stitching, pcb_analyze_via, or pcb_analyze_thermal. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context clues beyond the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only says 'Analyze', which is vague—it does not state whether this is a calculation, simulation, or report generator, nor any side effects, data requirements, or output format. This lack of transparency leaves significant ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, making it concise and easy to parse. However, it lacks structural elements like separate clauses for exclusions or alternatives, so it does not aid scanning as effectively as a two-part description could.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 4 numeric parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the analysis produces, what inputs are required vs optional, or how it relates to many sibling analysis tools. An agent would not know what to expect as output or how to invoke it correctly without further guessing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any parameters. Parameter names like differential_impedance_ohm and frequency_mhz are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning beyond them, failing to compensate for the missing schema descriptions or clarify the role of optional parameters like cable_length_m.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool analyzes common-mode noise on differential pairs, using a specific verb ('Analyze') and a specific resource. It is distinct from nearby siblings like pcb_analyze_mode_conversion or pcb_analyze_differential_pair, though it does not explicitly differentiate from them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of related tools. The usage is only implied by the description itself, so agents cannot determine when this is the right choice among many similar analysis tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states a generic 'Analyze' operation without noting whether it is read-only, what calculations are performed, what the output looks like, or any assumptions about thermal models. This is insufficient for safe tool invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is not overly verbose, though it borders on under-specification. It is efficiently front-loaded with the core action and subject.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not clarify the analysis methodology, required inputs, or expected returns, making it insufficient for an agent to confidently select and invoke this tool among many thermal-analysis siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 25% (one parameter described). The tool description itself does not explain any of the four parameters or their units, leaving users to guess how power_watts, ambient_temp_c, and max_junction_temp_c fit into the thermal analysis. This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a verb (Analyze) and a resource (thermal dissipation for a component), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like pcb_analyze_thermal_via that target vias specifically. However, it doesn't elaborate on what metrics are analyzed, leaving some ambiguity about the exact scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other thermal analysis tools in the sibling list, such as pcb_analyze_thermal_via or pcb_analyze_copper_spreading. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says it calculates frequencies and identifies noise-amplifying modes, but does not explain return format, units, underlying assumptions (e.g., ideal cavity model, mode numbers), or any limitations. This is insufficient for a tool with no output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence adds value by explaining the practical relevance (EMI). It is appropriately sized, though it could trade a few words for parameter context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a calculation tool with 4 required parameters and no output schema or annotations. The description gives the purpose but omits expected outputs, assumptions, units, and guidance for comparison with sibling analysis tools. It is not complete enough for an agent to confidently invoke and interpret results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 25% (only dielectric_height_mm has a description). The description adds no parameter details, leaving the meaning of plane_width_mm, plane_length_mm, and dielectric_constant mostly to name inference. With low coverage, the description should compensate but does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool calculates power/ground plane cavity resonance frequencies, a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not differentiate from the very similar sibling tool pcb_analyze_cavity_resonance, leaving ambiguity about which to use.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It neither mentions typical scenarios (e.g., power integrity analysis) nor excludes other tools. Without this, agents cannot decide between this and pcb_analyze_cavity_resonance, pcb_analyze_pdn, or pcb_calc_pdn_impedance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it reveals nothing about side effects, output format, assumptions, or how the analysis is performed. The statement is purely declarative and adds no transparency beyond the obvious.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and immediately communicates the core purpose, which is exactly what conciseness requires.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't specify what the analysis returns, how the method affects the calculation, or any necessary context for interpreting results. The agent would lack essential information to properly invoke and use the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description doesn't explain the parameters. While param names like nominal_mm and tolerances_mm are somewhat self-explanatory, the meaning of the tolerance array and the method options (worst_case, rss, monte_carlo) is not elaborated, so the description adds minimal value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Analyze manufacturing tolerance stackup' clearly states a specific action (analyze) and resource (manufacturing tolerance stackup), which aligns with the tool name and distinguishes it from many siblings that focus on other PCB aspects. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential alternative tools or mention the scope beyond the general purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It only states the function, leaving the agent to infer suitability from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the tool performs an estimation based on rise time but does not explain what 'EMC concerns' entails, what output format to expect, or any assumptions/limitations of the estimation. This is a meaningful gap 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.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence and immediately front-loads the purpose, which is efficient. However, the phrase 'EMC concerns' is vague and under-specified; this brevity borders on being too terse rather than genuinely concise, as it leaves out necessary context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what kind of result is produced (e.g., a numerical bandwidth estimate, a list of concerns, a risk level). It currently provides only the input and general intent, leaving the output and interpretation unclear, which is inadequate even for a simple one-parameter tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema only lists rise_time_ps as a number with no description. The description adds that the tool uses 'rise time' as the basis, but since the parameter name already encodes the unit (ps), the added semantic value is minimal. It does not describe units, valid range, or typical values, so the description only partially compensates for the 0% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool estimates signal bandwidth and EMC concerns using rise time as input. It uses a specific verb ('estimate') and resource ('signal bandwidth and EMC concerns'), which distinguishes it from many sibling tools that focus on specific interfaces or other analysis tasks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'from rise time' implies the tool should be used when a rise time value is available and bandwidth/EMC estimation is needed. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over related siblings like pcb_analyze_clock_emi or pcb_analyze_smps_emi, nor any exclusions or alternatives mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates that something will be predicted from parameters and does not disclose what the output looks like (e.g., pass/fail, margin, dB), what standards are applied, or any limitations/assumptions of the prediction model.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words or redundant restatements of the name. It is maximally concise, though the brevity trades away completeness captured in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and sits among dozens of similar EMC/analysis siblings. A one-sentence description with no return-value information, no example, and no mention of supported standards is inadequate for an agent to invoke it correctly and interpret the result.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 20% (only 'standard' has an inline description), and the tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning. It merely says 'given design parameters' without elaborating on required inputs, units, or valid values, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool 'Predict EMC compliance' with a specific verb and resource, but it does not distinguish this from sibling tools such as pcb_predict_emissions or pcb_analyze_emi_risk, and omits mention of the 'standard' parameter that narrows the prediction context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'for given design parameters' implies the tool is used when design parameters are available for compliance prediction, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites like a specific market or standard.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, what 'return current containment constraints' actually means, or any edge cases or side effects. This is insufficient for a calculation tool that operates on PCB designs.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler, which is concise. However, the awkward phrasing 'optimal ground via stitching spacing' could be clearer, and a small structural revision would improve readability without adding length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values and units, but it only vaguely mentions 'return current containment constraints.' The tool has 5 input parameters and sits among many similar analysis tools, yet the description does not give enough context for an agent to anticipate the result or distinguish it from related tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context by linking 'lambda/N' to lambda_fraction and 'containment' to target_containment_percent, but it does not clarify the remaining parameters. It adds minimal value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb (Calculate) and names the resource (ground via stitching spacing) and method (wavelength lambda/N). However, the phrasing 'optimal ground via stitching spacing' is grammatically awkward and does not explicitly distinguish this tool from similar siblings like pcb_calc_via_stitching or pcb_optimize_ground_stitching.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage via the wavelength formula but does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer when this is the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'analyze' without specifying whether this is a calculation, simulation, or heuristic estimate, nor what inputs or assumptions are involved. There is no mention of return values, accuracy, or limitations. The sparse description leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence that uses active voice and front-loads the verb and object. There is no wasted text, and it is appropriately concise for a simple statement of purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), a single sentence is insufficient. The description does not explain what the analysis returns, what physical or model assumptions are made, or how it relates to other shielding/EMC tools. It provides no context to help an agent understand the tool's role or interpret results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50% (material and aperture_mm have descriptions; thickness_mm and frequency_mhz do not). The tool description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but parameter names are self-explanatory and the schema provides allowed material values and aperture definition. Baseline is 3 because the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description does not introduce confusion.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('analyze') and resource ('shielding effectiveness of an enclosure'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pcb_analyze_cavity_resonance or pcb_analyze_emi_risk, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is unambiguous and useful for selection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus similar analysis tools (e.g., cavity resonance, EMI risk). No prerequisites, edge cases, or contextual use cases are provided. The description is purely a statement of function, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses one side effect (freeing memory) but does not mention whether the operation is irreversible, whether it invalidates the session_id, or any error conditions. It also does not clarify what happens to associated data or analysis results.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and side effect. Every word is informative, with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter, but the description lacks essential context: it does not explain the parameter, provide usage guidance, or describe the expected result/return value. The absence of an output schema increases the need for a more descriptive explanation, which is not provided.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention the session_id parameter at all. The agent is given no explanation of what a session_id is, how to obtain it, or any format constraints. The description adds no value beyond the parameter name itself.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Close') and the resource ('a design session'), and adds the consequence 'free memory'. This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which are analysis or query operations. The verb+resource structure is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as listing sessions or other session-management tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, cleanup flows, or situations where closing a session might be inappropriate. The usage context is only implicitly derived from the tool's name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention the calculation model, assumptions, units for output, limitations, or any side effects. The one-line description leaves the agent guessing about return format and boundary conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. There is no filler or redundancy, and the key information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the result looks like, what units are used, or which formulas apply for microstrip vs stripline. Critical information for correct invocation is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter documentation. It does not explain any of the six parameters, even though names are somewhat self-explanatory. The mention of 'differential pair' hints at spacing, but detailed parameter semantics are absent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool calculates differential pair impedance, with a specific verb and resource. It gives examples (USB, HDMI, Ethernet) that convey the domain. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like microstrip or stripline impedance calculators, so it does not fully distinguish itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The examples (USB, HDMI, Ethernet) imply use for high-speed differential signals, providing some context. Yet it offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions such as single-ended impedance. The usage is implied rather than clearly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'Estimate' with no details on assumptions (e.g., small-loop approximation), output format, limitations, or side effects. The agent gains only the minimal implication that this is a non-destructive calculation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the verb and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is too minimal to be complete. It lacks return value expectations, model assumptions, and usage context relative to other EMC tools, making it insufficient for an unfamiliar agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does 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 does not mention or explain the three parameters (loop_area_mm2, current_ma, frequency_mhz). Though the parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no relationship or context beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly specifies the action ('Estimate radiated emissions') and the object ('from a current loop') for EMC. This distinguishes it from broader EMC tools like pcb_predict_emissions by identifying the specific current-loop source model.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling EMC analysis tools. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent without context for selecting it over similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'analyze' without stating assumptions, calculation methodology, side effects, or output format, leaving key behavioral aspects unknown.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, making it concise. However, it is under-specified, missing useful context that could be included without sacrificing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no annotations or output schema, and the description is too terse to fully convey what the analysis produces or how to use the results. It lacks information about the return value, expected units, or interpretation of skew, which is critical for a length matching analysis tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters having clear descriptions in the schema. The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Analyze') and resource ('trace length matching') for a group of signals. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pcb_analyze_timing or pcb_analyze_differential_pair, which have different focuses.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or preferred contexts. It does not reference sibling tools or indicate when length matching analysis is appropriate over other signal integrity analyses.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only reveals the dependency on python-docx and cairosvg. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, whether it automatically generates renders, or any side effects like creating temp files or modifying session state, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences: one stating the purpose and one listing dependencies. Both sentences earn their place, with no fluff or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The schema covers parameter details, but the description lacks usage context and alternative differentiation. It does mention the report contents, which is helpful, but does not explain prerequisites like a completed design review or the difference from HTML reports, leaving moderate gaps for a generation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already well documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool generates a DOCX design review report with embedded renders, schematic images, and findings. The verb 'Generate' and specific resource 'DOCX design review report' make it distinct from typical analysis tools, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling report generators like the HTML version.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the similar HTML or generic report tools. The only implicit hint is the 'DOCX' in the description, but there is no explicit when-to-use or alternative comparison.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'Get' but does not disclose error behavior, session requirements (beyond schema), or other side effects. Minimal extra value over the verb.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to explaining the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 1-parameter getter without an output schema, the description adequately lists the content areas but leaves 'manufacturing info' vague and does not mention return format or error handling, which could cause ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the session_id description clearly specifies its origin. The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameters, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves fab notes, material specs, and manufacturing info, using a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like pcb_get_design_rules or pcb_get_stackup, though 'manufacturing info' is broad.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the schema. The agent must infer usage context from the description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose what the summary contains, whether a valid session is needed, or any limitations or side effects. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond what the tool name already suggests.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence: 'Get trace summary from a parsed design.' It is front-loaded with the action and resource, contains no filler, and every word is relevant.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is adequate for a simple getter with a session_id and optional layer filter, and it does mention the parsed-design context. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves the return structure and operational details implicit, making it only minimally complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes both parameters (layer and session_id) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning about how these parameters are used, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states what the tool does: 'Get trace summary from a parsed design.' It specifies both the action and the resource, and the source context ('parsed design') helps distinguish it from sibling tools like pcb_get_vias or pcb_get_nets. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with other trace-analysis tools, so it stops short of full differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The only usage hint is the phrase 'from a parsed design,' which implicitly requires first parsing a design before calling the tool. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over other trace-related tools, nor any mention of alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits such as analysis method, return format, or side effects. It only states the topic without explaining how the analysis is performed, what output is produced, or any assumptions, leaving significant ambiguity for the agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with a clear verb-first structure and no extraneous words. However, it sacrifices valuable detail for brevity, so it is not at the highest level.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With five required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a minimal sentence like this leaves the agent without enough context to infer input requirements or expected results. The description should at least hint at what the analysis returns or what physical model is used.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter meanings. It does not mention any of the five parameters or their roles in the analysis, though the parameter names themselves are somewhat self-explanatory.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool's purpose with a specific verb ("Analyze") and resource ("crosstalk between parallel traces"), and further specifies the crosstalk types (NEXT and FEXT), which distinguishes it from other analysis tools in the sibling list (e.g., cable coupling or common mode).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the use case (analyzing crosstalk between parallel traces) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. Sibling tools like pcb_analyze_cable_coupling exist but are not referenced.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Check if...' which implies an analysis/read operation, but does not disclose whether it returns a boolean, risk score, or requires specific conditions. No mention of side effects, units, or limitations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one concise sentence, front-loaded with the action, and contains no extraneous text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is minimal and does not explain the analysis method, the meaning of the result, or any prerequisites, making it incomplete for selecting and invoking correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description contains no parameter information, but the input schema parameter names are self-explanatory with units (trace_length_mm, frequency_mhz) and a common term (dielectric_constant). However, the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, and with 0% schema coverage, the agent must rely on the names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('a trace'), clearly stating the function is to evaluate potential unintentional antenna behavior. While it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools, the focus on 'trace' and 'antenna' differentiates it from other analysis tools like slot antenna or EMI risk.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pcb_analyze_emi_risk or pcb_analyze_common_mode. The description only states the action, leaving the agent to infer context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'check', without stating whether the operation is read-only, what side effects exist, or what the result contains. It lacks transparency about output format or safety profile.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no filler or redundant information. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns, but it does not. It also omits prerequisite context (e.g., needing a parsed session) and any mention of alternatives, leaving the description incomplete for a tool with five parameters and no annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already has 100% description coverage for all parameters, so the description adds no additional semantics. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting; the description adds nothing extra.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('PCB assembly fits within an enclosure'), effectively setting it apart from sibling tools. It is direct and leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no context on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like requiring data from pcb_parse_step. No exclusions or alternative tool suggestions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it gets data, omitting whether it is read-only, requires an existing session (already in schema), or has any side effects or limitations. This lack of disclosure is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently states the action and resource, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Without an output schema or annotations, the description should explain expected return values or behavior. It does not describe the format or content of the returned clearances, nor does it mention dependencies on pcb_parse_step or how it differs from similar tools. This leaves the tool contextually incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter (session_id), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, but it is not required to given the schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Get' and clearly defines the resource as 'component-to-component and component-to-board-edge 3D clearances' sourced from 'STEP data'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pcb_get_design_rules which focus on 2D design rules, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites beyond the implicit STEP data, or compare with similar tools such as pcb_get_design_rules. It provides no contextual help for selecting this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'calculate impedance,' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose any assumptions, underlying formula, units of the result, or potential limitations (e.g., symmetric vs. asymmetric stripline). This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate the tool's behavior fully.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently states the purpose and the key distinguishing detail (buried between ground planes). Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 required parameters with no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal to fully support an agent. It does not explain the meaning of key parameters, the expected return value, or any practical constraints. The tool is not sufficiently documented for reliable invocation in all cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters beyond what the parameter names (trace_width_mm, dielectric_height_mm, trace_thickness_mm, dielectric_constant) already convey. It does not clarify ambiguous aspects like whether dielectric_height_mm is the distance to one ground plane or the total height, which is critical for correct use.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Calculate stripline (buried trace between ground planes) impedance.' The verb 'calculate' with the resource 'stripline impedance' is specific, and the parenthetical clarifies the distinct geometry (buried between ground planes), which differentiates it from microstrip or other impedance calculators.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage context is implied by the name and description: use this for stripline (buried) traces. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of sibling tools like pcb_calc_microstrip_impedance or pcb_calc_differential_impedance. No alternatives are named, so the guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the calculation function and does not disclose return format, units, assumptions, limitations, or side effects. The only addition is the IPC-2221 standard reference, which adds minimal behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately concise for a straightforward calculation tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions. The description does not specify return units, calculation assumptions, or the role of each parameter. Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, one enum), the description is under-specified for an agent to invoke it with full confidence.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does 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 only hints at 'current capacity' mapping to current_amps, but does not explain temp_rise_c, copper_thickness_oz, or layer_type. The agent gets minimal guidance on parameter meaning beyond the parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Calculate' with a clear resource 'minimum trace width for current capacity' and cites the IPC-2221 standard. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling calculation tools like impedance or skin effect calculators.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when trace width for current capacity is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It is a simple statement of function with no guidance on alternatives or conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only discloses the cairosvg dependency. It does not mention whether the tool requires an active session (implicit via session_id), what happens if the output file exists, or the return behavior. This is minimal disclosure for a tool with side effects (file creation).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by an essential dependency note. Every word earns its place, with no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For an 8-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage, the description is adequate but lean. It lacks guidance on choosing this over pcb_export_all_renders and does not mention the return value (e.g., the output path). The missing output schema and minimal description leave some context gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any param-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides. It mentions render types, but the schema already enumerates them. No added value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Export') and resource ('SVG render to PNG'), explicitly listing the supported render types (board, stackup, net, annotated). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that render or annotate but do not export to PNG.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pcb_export_all_renders. No exclusions, prerequisites, or context (e.g., 'use this when you need a single PNG') are given. The only implied usage is from the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'look up' without detailing the return format (e.g., units, dBµV/m vs dBµV), error handling for unsupported frequencies, or reliance on defaults (e.g., class 3, category radiated). The description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic lookup action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With a simple 3-parameter tool and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the core lookup function. However, it lacks important contextual details such as what the returned limit represents (units), how missing or out-of-range inputs are handled, and how defaults (class 3, radiated) apply. It is minimally viable but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'frequency' and 'class' but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already documents (e.g., allowed ranges, enums). It does not clarify parameter relationships or provide examples, so it earns the baseline score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Look up CISPR 25 emission limit for a specific frequency and class.' It uses a specific verb ('look up') and identifies the exact resource (CISPR 25 emission limit) with relevant parameters. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pcb_get_iso11452_level or pcb_lookup_limit_live.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention other standards (ISO 11452) or live limit lookup tools, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is implied by the tool name and standard reference, but there is no explicit usage instruction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description is minimal and does not disclose behavioral details such as read-only status, potential side effects, or error behavior. With no annotations, this is a gap, though the 'Get' verb implies a read operation. It does not state what happens if session_id is invalid or if no DRC constraints are found.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists key output contents. It is tautology-free and has no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lists four specific DRC constraint types but does not provide an output schema or explain the return format/units. While adequate for a simple getter, it could be more complete by stating that it returns all extracted DRC constraints or by explaining error cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully describes the only parameter, session_id, as coming from pcb_parse_layout, so the description does not need to add more. The description does not mention the parameter, but schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets extracted DRC constraints, listing specific constraint types (min trace, min space, min drill, min annular ring). This distinguishes it from siblings like pcb_get_drill_table and pcb_get_stackup, which fetch different aspects of the design.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like pcb_get_drill_table or pcb_get_manufacturing_notes, nor does it specify any prerequisites beyond the session_id parameter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool gets a stackup from a parsed design, but does not disclose return format, error handling, or whether it performs any additional actions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no filler or redundant information, making it highly concise and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, but the description omits what the stackup data includes or how it relates to similar tools like pcb_get_stackup_templates. It provides just enough for basic understanding but lacks full context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already describes session_id as 'Session ID from pcb_parse_layout' (100% coverage). The description adds 'from a parsed design' but does not elaborate on parameter semantics beyond that, so it meets the baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'layer stackup' from a 'parsed design,' clearly indicating a retrieval operation. This differentiates it from siblings like pcb_render_stackup (visualization) and pcb_get_stackup_templates (template lookup).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The phrase 'from a parsed design' implies a prerequisite but does not name siblings or exclusion conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'predicts' and 'generates recommendations' but does not detail assumptions, limitations, output format, or any side effects. For an analysis tool, this lack of transparency about what the user can expect from the result is a gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one sentence, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no redundant information. It is concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex analysis tool with no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain what the output looks like (pass/fail, margins, report format), nor does it set expectations about how the analysis is performed. Given the complexity and the existence of many similar sibling tools, more context is needed to fully understand the tool's role.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, such as how parameters interact or examples of typical values, but it does not need to since the schema descriptions are adequate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('predicts') and resource ('CISPR 25 radiated emission compliance for clock harmonics'), and also mentions generating ISO 11452 immunity recommendations. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pcb_analyze_clock_emi or pcb_predict_emissions by tying it to automotive standards.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for automotive EMC compliance analysis but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, so the usage context is clear only through the standards mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. However, it only states the action without disclosing the analysis method, return values, assumptions, or limitations. There is no behavioral detail beyond the basic purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded and contains no filler. Every word earns its place, making it appropriately concise for such a focused tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is too minimal to be complete; it doesn't explain what the analysis returns, what the inputs mean physically, or what assumptions are made. An agent would lack essential information to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), and the tool description does not mention any parameters or how they are used. The parameter names (slot_length_mm, frequency_mhz, slot_width_mm) are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic context beyond the schema, so it fails to compensate for the low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Analyze') and resource ('slot in ground plane') with a clear qualifier ('as unintentional antenna'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like pcb_analyze_trace_antenna. It precisely states what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies a clear use case: analyzing slots in ground planes as unintentional antennas. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives, so it lacks the explicit when/when-not guidance of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden but only adds that loss tangent is accounted for and the output units. It does not describe the return structure, assumptions, or limitations. This is adequate for a simple calculator but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and units, with no redundant information. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple calculator with no output schema or annotations, the description gives the core calculation and output units but lacks parameter semantics and return format. It is sufficient for a basic understanding but leaves gaps for a fully autonomous agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is low (25%: only loss_tangent has a description). The description mentions loss_tangent but does not explain the roles or units of frequency_mhz, dielectric_constant, or trace_length_mm, forcing reliance on property names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool calculates dielectric loss, specifying output units (dB/inch, total dB) and the context (trace at frequency). It distinguishes from sibling loss calculators (e.g., skin effect, insertion loss) by explicitly naming the loss mechanism and loss tangent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pcb_calc_skin_effect or pcb_calc_insertion_loss. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a design type and complexity score, but does not state whether it is read-only, whether it requires a successfully parsed layout, or what happens if the session_id is invalid. For a classification tool, this is minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and includes all essential output details. No filler or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description gives the key information: categories and score range. However, it omits contextual details like how the classification relates to other sibling tools or what downstream actions might use this output. Given the low complexity, it is nearly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter (session_id described as 'Session ID from pcb_parse_layout'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool classifies the overall design type, listing specific categories (rf, mixed_signal, high_speed_digital, power, simple_digital) and the complexity score range (1-10). This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes from sibling pcb_classify_nets, which classifies nets rather than the overall design.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites such as 'use after pcb_parse_layout' or context like 'during design review'. The only hint is in the schema for session_id, but the description itself offers no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It describes the calculation performed (setup/hold margins per DQ bit vs DQS) and the JEDEC reference, providing useful context. However, it does not disclose limitations, assumptions (e.g., ideal transmission line, no crosstalk), or what the output actually looks like (e.g., pass/fail table).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and scope. Every word adds value, no filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex analysis tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives a high-level summary of the calculation but lacks sufficient detail for correct invocation. It does not explain the return value structure (e.g., per-lane margins, pass/fail indicators), required vs. optional inputs, or any steps to prepare data. It is adequate for selecting the tool but not fully complete for using it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 75%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds general context linking parameters (byte lanes, DQS/DQ) to the analysis, but does not explain specific parameter semantics beyond the schema. It does not compensate fully for the undocumented ddr_standard parameter or provide details on how inputs like trace lengths are used.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('analyze') with a clear resource ('DDR timing margin') and detailed scope ('per-lane', 'against JEDEC budget', 'setup/hold margins for each DQ bit relative to DQS'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like pcb_analyze_ddr or pcb_analyze_timing by emphasizing the per-lane budget calculation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for detailed margin analysis, but does not state scenarios or exclusions, such as 'use for final DDR compliance checks' or 'not for topology validation.' No mention of alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the analytical approach: 'Combines return path quality, loop area, frequency content, and current to predict emissions.' This gives insight into the tool's behavior, but it does not explain output format, interpretation of scores, or any side effects. It is informative but not thorough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and immediately followed by the methodology. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or filler content. It is concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover the expected result. It does state that it scores per net and identifies top concerns, but it omits details such as how to interpret scores, the effect of the 'standard' parameter, and how this compares to closely related tools. The description is functional but leaves gaps for a complex EMI analysis tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage: session_id is 'Session ID from pcb_parse_layout' and standard lists the acceptable EMC standards. The description does not add additional parameter-specific meaning, but it does not need to because the schema is sufficiently descriptive. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action: 'Score EMI risk per net and identify top concerns,' which clearly identifies the tool's purpose and resource. It goes beyond a simple 'analyze' verb by describing the output granularity, though it does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like pcb_predict_emissions or pcb_get_emi_hotspots.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for net-level EMI risk assessment ('Score EMI risk per net'), but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. It lacks a clear 'use this when' or 'for X, use Y instead' statement, so the usage context is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It references 'V-T curves, I-V curves' and 'S-parameter loss,' but the schema only accepts simplified IBIS parameters (voh/vol/rise/fall) and a scalar channel_loss_db. This mismatch misleads about the actual inputs. It also omits return format and assumptions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise, front-loaded sentences. The first states the core function and method; the second adds the comparative advantage. No waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a complex simulation tool with no output schema, yet the description says nothing about what the eye diagram output looks like. Missing details include prerequisites, behavior when optional parameters are omitted, and the relationship between channel_loss_db and trace_length_mm. The description is too sparse for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. However, the description mentions 'S-parameter loss' and 'V-T/I-V curves' that do not map cleanly onto the schema's fields (channel_loss_db, simple IBIS parameter object), creating confusion. It adds no practical guidance for populating the nested ibis_model or optional parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Uses a specific verb ('Generate'), names the resource ('IBIS-driven eye diagram'), and describes the method ('from parsed IBIS model data convolved with channel S-parameter loss'). It also distinguishes itself from analytical eye diagrams, differentiating it from sibling tool pcb_calc_eye_diagram.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
States 'More accurate than purely analytical eye diagrams,' which gives clear context for when to prefer this tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or enumerate exclusions, so it misses the full when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the lambda/20 rule methodology, adding behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it lacks details about output format, units, assumptions, or limitations, which would be valuable 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the action and includes a useful methodological detail, making it well-structured for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is adequate for a simple two-parameter calculation tool, covering what it does and the method used. However, with no output schema or annotations, it falls short of explaining what exactly is returned (e.g., density and spacing values), any assumptions, or edge cases, leaving some gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50%, with max_frequency_mhz described but dielectric_constant not. The description reinforces the role of frequency but does not explain dielectric_constant or its relationship to the calculation. It adds some value via the lambda/20 rule but does not fully compensate for the missing parameter description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Calculate'), resource ('via stitching density and spacing'), and context ('EMI containment at a given frequency'). It also mentions the lambda/20 rule, which distinguishes it from related sibling tools like pcb_optimize_ground_stitching.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools such as pcb_optimize_ground_stitching or pcb_analyze_ground_stitch, nor does it provide any exclusion criteria or context for when this calculation is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only says 'validate accuracy' without explaining what the tool returns (e.g., pass/fail, percentage error), how tolerance_percent factors into the comparison, or what happens when values differ. This leaves significant ambiguity for an agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and purpose. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler. It is highly efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is relatively simple and the schema documents all parameters, but there is no output schema and the description does not explain what the tool returns or how 'validate accuracy' manifests. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description should offer more detail on the expected result, making it partially incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds little beyond the schema: it mentions 'analytical calculation' and 'simulation result' which map to analytical_value and simulated_value, but does not deepen understanding of unit or tolerance_percent beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Compare analytical calculation vs simulation result to validate accuracy.' It uses a specific verb ('compare') and identifies the two resources being compared, distinguishing it from sibling calculation tools like pcb_calc_microstrip_impedance and simulation tools like pcb_generate_em_simulation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool should be used when both an analytical value and a simulated value are available and need validation, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. There is no explicit reference to sibling tools like pcb_validate_with_openems.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool modifies anything, requires a valid existing session, or how errors are handled. It only lists output fields without clarifying units, edge cases, or that the impedance is analytical (not simulated).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and no wasted words. It efficiently communicates what the tool does and what it returns.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema or annotations, and the description provides only a high-level summary of the return value. It lacks specifics on how candidates are prioritized, what 'geometry' includes, or required session state, leaving gaps for an agent to invoke it without full clarity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and both parameters (session_id, max_candidates) have descriptions. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond the schema, such as expected format or constraints for max_candidates, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Extract' and the resource 'RF/high-speed structures from a parsed design', with the explicit outcome of being 'suitable for full-wave EM simulation'. This distinguishes it from sibling analysis tools and simulation execution tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'from a parsed design' implies the prerequisite of a prior pcb_parse_layout call via session_id. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like pcb_generate_em_simulation or pcb_analyze_* tools, nor does it provide exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It adds useful domain context about the consequence of crossings, but it does not disclose operational behavior such as return format, whether it is read-only, or any prerequisites beyond session_id.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two tightly written sentences. The first states the action and target; the second explains the engineering significance. No filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description explains the tool's purpose and why it matters, but with no output schema it leaves the exact return value (e.g., list of crossing signals, locations, severity) unspecified. Still adequate for a focused analysis tool with a single parameter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter (session_id) is already well-described in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Find') and a clear resource ('signals crossing ground plane splits/slots'), immediately distinguishing it from related analysis tools like pcb_analyze_return_paths or pcb_analyze_emi_risk.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The rationale ('Each crossing forces return current to detour...') implies this is used when evaluating EMI risk from ground plane splits, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools or provide exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It describes output sections but omits important behaviors like the cross-MCP gate for pending external actions, the PRELIMINARY stamping mechanism, or that run_analysis can trigger pcb_run_design_review. These are only in the parameter schema, not the description. The gate is a critical behavioral trait for an agent to understand.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and output format. The second sentence adds valuable detail about document contents without redundancy. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For an 8-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should cover workflow prerequisites and side effects. It does explain what the report contains but omits the gating behavior (cross-MCP pending actions), the possibility of running analysis first, and how output files are handled. The schema covers parameter semantics, but the description misses operational context, making it incomplete but not wholly inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail; it doesn't explain the meaning of force or run_analysis beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Generate a professional PCB design review report (DOCX and/or HTML) from all analysis results in the current session.' It clearly distinguishes itself by mentioning comprehensive content (executive summary, domain analysis, traceable findings, plots, action items) from sibling report generators like pcb_generate_docx_report or pcb_generate_html_report.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies when to use (after analyses in the current session) but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. The description says 'from all analysis results in the current session' which is a clear context, but it never says 'use this instead of pcb_generate_report' or when not to use it. No mention of prerequisites like having run pcb_run_design_review.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and a prerequisite, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what the returned report contains, or any side effects/error conditions. The dependency is useful but insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main verb and object. No filler or redundancy; every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a two-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage, the description includes a critical prerequisite, but it lacks any mention of output/return behavior or alternatives among sibling report generators. It is adequate but has clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters, including the format enum values, so the description adds no additional parameter-level meaning. The prerequisite is relevant to session_id but does not enhance the schema's parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses a specific verb ('generate') and names the resource ('structured report from design review results'), clearly stating the primary function. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from sibling report generators like pcb_generate_design_review_report, pcb_generate_html_report, or pcb_generate_docx_report.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says 'Must run pcb_run_design_review first', giving a clear prerequisite for usage. It does not mention when to prefer this over the other report-generation siblings, but the requirement is a solid usage signal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It only states what data is returned without specifying whether this is a read-only lookup, what output format to expect, or any limitations (e.g., only standard materials, no custom dielectric constants). This is a simple getter, but the lack of any additional context beyond the tool name leaves the agent guessing about side effects or constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'Get dielectric properties for common PCB materials.' It is front-loaded with the action and resource, contains no redundant words, and every word adds meaning. This is appropriately concise for a 0-parameter tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that the tool has no output schema, the description should clarify what the returned data looks like. It mentions 'dielectric properties' but does not specify which properties (e.g., Dk, Df) or which 'common' materials are covered, nor the format (list, table). While a simple getter might not need extensive detail, the lack of an output schema makes this description only minimally complete for an agent deciding whether to invoke it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema reflects that (coverage 100% vacuously). According to the rubric, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4. Since there are no parameters to explain, the description does not need to compensate for schema gaps. The score reflects the baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get dielectric properties for common PCB materials.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and a resource ('dielectric properties for common PCB materials'), which immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like pcb_calc_dielectric_loss (which computes loss, not properties) and pcb_get_stackup (which returns board stackup).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios such as needing material constants before impedance calculations, nor does it exclude cases like custom vendor materials. There are no alternative tool names referenced or any contextual hints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It only says 'Get net list' without disclosing read-only guarantees, output format, error conditions, or behavior when the session is invalid. It provides minimal beyond the verb itself.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that is direct and free of unnecessary words. It efficiently states the tool's action and source design context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although the tool is a simple getter with only two parameters, the description does not mention how the filter pattern is applied or what the return structure looks like. With no output schema, a bit more detail about the returned net list would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters ('session_id' and 'filter' with descriptions). The description adds no extra parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get net list from a parsed design' clearly identifies the action (get) and the resource (net list), and scopes it to a parsed design. This distinguishes it from sibling get_* tools like pcb_get_components or pcb_get_vias.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'from a parsed design' implies that the tool should be used after parsing a design, providing some context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives for net-related analysis (e.g., pcb_classify_nets or pcb_render_net).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic action. It does not explicitly state that listing is read-only, nor does it mention side effects, required context, or output expectations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is direct and front-loaded with the action verb. It contains no wasted words or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple parameterless list operation, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context on what constitutes an 'active design session' and provides no information about return values or output structure, leaving some gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially fully covered. The baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameter semantics to explain; the description does not need to add parameter-level details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'list' and the resource 'active design sessions', clearly stating the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pcb_list_accepted_findings and pcb_close_session, which target different resources or actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states the action without any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the usage to be inferred from the purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the rendering purpose but does not mention read-only safety, how the SVG output is delivered (inline vs file), error conditions, or whether an active session is required beyond the schema. This is a notable gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence front-loads the action and resource, includes specific layer details, and contains no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for such a straightforward tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description adequately conveys the core output but leaves ambiguity about the return format (e.g., SVG data vs file path) and any operational requirements beyond the session_id documented in the schema. Given the simple tool, this is acceptable but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The sole parameter (session_id) has a descriptive schema entry ('Session ID from pcb_parse_layout') with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter insight, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies an action (Render), a specific resource (SVG cross-section of the PCB layer stackup), and the key content (copper, dielectric, solder mask layers with thicknesses). This distinguishes it from data-retrieval siblings like pcb_get_stackup or pcb_get_stackup_templates.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for visualizing the stackup but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites beyond what the schema implies. It is clear but lacks explicit differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral transparency. It discloses that the tool computes skin-depth-based current density and considers phenomena like transition current spreading and slot crossing impedance, giving insight into its model. However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only, what input context (e.g., board data) is required, or what the visualization output looks like.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with the main purpose first. The second sentence packs multiple technical terms but remains concise and free of filler. It earns a high score for front-loading and efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a single but complex parameter and no output schema or annotations. The description explains what is calculated but fails to describe the visualization output, how to interpret results, or how it differs from similar analysis tools. This leaves gaps for an agent selecting or invoking the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% description coverage for the single 'discontinuities' parameter and its nested properties, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about the analysis phenomena (plane splits, slot crossing impedance), which can help agents understand which properties matter, but it does not directly explain parameter syntax or constraints beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Visualize' and names the resource 'return current path discontinuities.' It also lists computed quantities like skin-depth-based current density, clearly distinguishing it from analysis-only siblings such as pcb_analyze_return_current_density.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pcb_analyze_return_paths or pcb_analyze_return_current_density. It implies usage through the verb 'visualize' but does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It communicates a safe analysis behavior ('Analyze', 'estimate') and lists the computed quantities, but it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, describe return format, or disclose modeling assumptions/caveats. This is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that moves from action and object to a colon-delimited list of specific outputs. It contains no filler words or redundant information. The structure makes the tool's purpose and scope easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should specify the return structure and interpretation, but only a vague list of outputs ('EMI impact') is provided. It also misses usage guidance and assumptions (e.g., default trace_type microstrip) that would help a selecting agent. Given the complexity of the calculation, one sentence is insufficient for full context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already documents all 7 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds a link between length_asymmetry_mm and SCD21/common-mode current, but does not add substantial semantics beyond the schema. No parameter is left unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool analyzes differential pair mode conversion and enumerates specific outputs (even/odd impedances, SCD21, common-mode current, EMI impact). This distinguishes it from siblings such as pcb_analyze_differential_pair (general differential analysis) and pcb_analyze_common_mode (common mode analysis).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for mode conversion analysis in differential pairs, specifically mentioning length asymmetry as an input driver. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools like pcb_analyze_common_mode or pcb_calc_differential_impedance, nor does it give exclusions. This is implied usage rather than explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries some behavioral burden. It explains that the tool 'walks' power nets and reports specific findings, but does not explicitly state that it is read-only, how it handles ambiguous cases, or what 'report' implies (e.g., format or side effects). The prerequisite is useful behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no filler. The first sentence packs the core purpose and three specific findings; the second states the essential prerequisite. Front-loaded and concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool's complexity is moderate and the description covers its main behavior and dependency. Without an output schema, it does not describe the return format, but the listed findings give a clear sense of expected output. Minor gap: no mention of session requirements beyond parsing schematic.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no extra meaning to the parameters; it implies relevance of min_decaps_per_rail to missing caps but does not explicitly explain how it is used. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('walk') and resource ('schematic's power nets'), and enumerates concrete outputs (missing bulk/bypass caps, ungrounded rails, rails without regulator). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like pcb_analyze_pdn or pcb_analyze_vrm.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives a prerequisite (requires schematic data via pcb_parse_schematic) but does not indicate when to choose this tool over alternatives like pcb_analyze_decoupling or pcb_analyze_pdn. No when/when-not or alternative guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It describes the analytical actions and implies a read-only operation (via 'analyze'), but it does not disclose side effects, output format, or any prerequisites beyond session_id. The behavior is partially transparent but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is efficient and front-loaded with the primary action. It includes a parenthetical list of examples, which is useful but makes the sentence slightly dense. No filler words; overall well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter, but the description omits what the output looks like (e.g., a findings list, report, or pass/fail). It also lacks differentiation from overlapping sibling tools, leaving the agent to guess the result format and how it integrates with the review workflow.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%: the sole parameter `session_id` is sufficiently described as 'Session id with schematic data.' The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Identify' and 'check' with a concrete resource: external-facing nets and specific protection components. It clearly distinguishes from siblings by focusing on protection circuit analysis across multiple interface types, with examples like USB, Ethernet, antenna ports, and power inputs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by defining the scope of analysis, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus specialized siblings like pcb_analyze_esd, pcb_analyze_common_mode, or pcb_analyze_usb. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer appropriateness from the examples.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It adds useful context by mentioning the conformal-mapping method and the grounded/ungrounded option, which goes beyond the schema. But it omits behavioral details like output units, validity limits of conformal mapping, or any accuracy caveats.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource, and every word adds value without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return values and any constraints. It does not state that the tool returns impedance in ohms, nor does it mention assumptions or limitations of the conformal mapping method. For a 6-parameter calculation tool, this is a significant gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is high (83%) and most parameters already have clear descriptions. The description adds no new parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Calculate') and resource ('coplanar waveguide (CPW/GCPW) impedance'), clearly identifying its function. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming the exact transmission line type and noting support for both grounded and ungrounded variants.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by specifying 'coplanar waveguide' and the grounded/ungrounded distinction, which helps differentiate from microstrip/stripline calculators. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It does mention that it returns pin counts and associated nets, which adds output context. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or that it relies on an existing session from pcb_parse_layout, leaving some behavioral aspects implicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that names the action and key outputs without extraneous detail. It is concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and main outputs. It could elaborate on the result structure or prerequisites, but the simplicity of the tool makes the description sufficient for selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter session_id is fully described in the schema as 'Session ID from pcb_parse_layout', so the description doesn't need to add much. The description mentions associated nets but doesn't clarify how they relate to the parameter, so no additional semantic value is provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool detects high-speed interfaces and enumerates specific types (DDR, PCIe, USB, Ethernet, LVDS, RF), plus the output (pin counts, nets). This distinguishes it from sibling analysis tools that target individual interfaces, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like pcb_analyze_pcie or pcb_classify_nets. The description does not mention prerequisites such as having a parsed layout session or expected next steps.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states what data is returned, without confirming that the operation is read-only, requires a valid session, or has no side effects. This is a significant gap for a getter with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and lists the output contents. There is no redundant or wasted wording.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple one-parameter tool, and the description lists the expected return data (dimensions, area, vertices, cutouts) in the absence of an output schema. However, it omits details like units, coordinate system, and invalid-session behavior, which would make it more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already fully documents the single parameter (session_id) with a clear description and 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific information, so it receives the baseline score for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Get' and resource 'board outline', and lists the key data types (dimensions, area, vertices, cutouts). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling getter tools like pcb_get_drill_table or pcb_get_design_rules.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when board outline information is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. This is ambiguous but not misleading.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It lists the output contents but does not state whether the tool is read-only, requires an active session beyond the schema parameter, or has any side effects. This is a gap for a getter tool with no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and lists the key output fields. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers the output contents. However, it does not mention how the drill table is obtained (via parsed layout) or the return format, leaving slight room for improvement.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides 100% coverage with a description for the only parameter (session_id). The tool description adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and names the resource ('drill table'), then lists the exact data it returns (sizes, counts, plating types, aspect ratios). This makes the tool's purpose clear and distinguishes it from other getter tools in the sibling list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies a use case (when you need drill table data) but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like pcb_get_vias or pcb_get_manufacturing_notes. No exclusions 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.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It indicates read-only behavior via words like 'Identify', 'Clusters', and 'returns', but does not detail output format or error handling. It adds some transparency but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded, and free of filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and output.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one parameter, the description covers the core functionality and outcome ('returns spatial hot-spots'). The lack of an output schema makes the return format vague, but the description is adequate for its simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema fully describes the only parameter session_id as 'Session ID from pcb_parse_layout', so the description adds no extra parameter semantics. Baseline of 3 applies due to high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Identify board regions with highest EMI risk' and further specifies it 'Clusters high-risk nets by location and returns spatial hot-spots.' This uses specific verbs and resources, distinguishing it from sibling tools like pcb_analyze_emi_risk by focusing on spatial localization.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies spatial hotspot analysis but does not mention exclusions or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage context from sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the output contents and the optional pymupdf dependency for image rendering, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, error behavior for invalid sessions/page numbers, or any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then outputs, then optional rendering. Every sentence provides value and there is no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description does explain the main return values. However, it does not mention the prerequisite session_id or page number bounds, and the output format is only listed at a high level. For a simple getter, this is mostly complete but has minor gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for all three parameters, each with meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-specific details beyond the schema; the pymupdf dependency for render_image is already captured in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets extracted text and annotations for a specific schematic PDF page, and lists the specific outputs (page text, components, net labels). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pcb_parse_schematic_pdf, which parses the whole schematic, and analysis tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites such as needing a session from pcb_parse_schematic_pdf or that for the full schematic one might use a different tool. Usage context is only implied by the schema parameter description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description indicates a read-only listing operation and adds context about 'accepted/suppressed' findings. However, with no annotations, it does not disclose behavior on invalid session IDs, pagination, or the exact return format, leaving moderate gaps in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the purpose without any filler. It is well-structured and immediate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, but without an output schema or more behavioral details, the description leaves some uncertainty about what 'accepted/suppressed findings' entails and what the returned list looks like. It is adequate but could be enriched with a note about the findings' statuses or typical use case.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one required session_id with 0% description coverage. The description only ties the parameter to 'a session', offering minimal additional meaning. It does not explain how to obtain a session ID, what format it should be in, or any related context, so the agent must infer from the parameter name alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action (list) and the target (accepted/suppressed findings) scoped to a session. This aligns with sibling tools like pcb_accept_finding, making its purpose unambiguous and distinct from other analysis tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies a workflow (after accepting/suppressing findings, list them) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. There are no stated prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the usage context somewhat implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states that the tool 'generates alternative proposals' which indicates a non-destructive analysis/generation, but it does not explicitly state whether it modifies anything, what the response format looks like, or any constraints. The mention of 'impedance/loss/resonance comparisons and cost scoring' adds some insight into the internal processing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action ('Analyze current stackup and generate alternative proposals') and includes all key aspects of the tool's purpose. No filler or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description must provide enough context for the agent. It fails to explain the structure of the returned proposals, how many are generated, how cost scoring works, or the role of the optional design_requirements parameter. This is a complex tool with nested object parameters, so a more detailed description is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'current stackup' which corresponds to the first parameter, but it does not mention 'design_requirements' or the cost scoring inputs beyond the phrase 'cost scoring'. Thus it adds only marginal value over the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Analyze current stackup and generate alternative proposals' with a specific resource (stackup) and scope (impedance/loss/resonance comparisons and cost scoring). This differentiates it from sibling tools like pcb_get_stackup (retrieval) and pcb_calc_microstrip_impedance (calculation of a single parameter).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for stackup optimization but provides no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance. It does not mention alternatives such as the individual impedance calculation tools, so the agent must infer the appropriate context from the wording alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It names the action ('Set design review context') but does not mention side effects such as overwriting previous context, persistence, or whether this is a required prerequisite (only says 'call before', not 'required'). The lack of state-change details is a gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by a clear usage directive. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's role as a context setter with a rich schema (7 params, 100% coverage, examples for thermal_limits and operating_conditions), the description is complete enough. It tells when to call it and what kind of data to provide. The only missing element is any detail about return behavior or state consequences, but since it's a setup command and there's no output schema, this is a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema sufficiently documents all 7 parameters with individual descriptions. The description's grouping into categories (requirements, standards, etc.) adds slight interpretive value but does not meaningfully exceed what the schema already provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The verb 'Set' and resource 'design review context' make the purpose clear. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being the context-setup step for reviews, and the mention of 'requirements, standards, known issues, operating conditions' gives a concrete overview. Not a perfect 5 because it omits some parameter categories (thermal_limits, impedance_targets) from the summary.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states 'Call before pcb_run_design_review', providing clear temporal guidance in the workflow. Does not discuss when not to use it or alternatives, but as a dedicated setup tool that's acceptable. The instruction is valuable because it names the exact dependent tool in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects and behavior. It does describe what the tool checks and that it validates against JEDEC limits, implying a non-destructive analysis, but it does not explicitly state whether the tool modifies state, requires additional context, or how it reports findings. This is partial transparency but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and the second sentence enumerates specific validation checks without unnecessary filler. Every word adds value, and the structure allows quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema, so the description must explain what the user gets back. It details the checks performed but does not state the return format (e.g., pass/fail, violation list, report), nor any prerequisites beyond session_id. Given the complexity of DDR validation, this omission leaves the agent without crucial information about result interpretation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the two parameters (session_id and ddr_standard) are already well-documented. The description adds a slight semantic hint that topology detection is 'auto' (suggesting ddr_standard might be auto-detected), but it does not elaborate on parameter usage or formats beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses specific verbs ('auto-detect and validate') with a clear resource ('DDR memory interface topology') and lists concrete checks (byte-lane grouping, DQ-DQS skew, inter-byte-lane skew, addr/cmd-to-clock skew, fly-by topology) against JEDEC limits. It clearly distinguishes this from broader DDR analysis tools like pcb_analyze_ddr by focusing on topology validation from classified nets.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by stating it works 'from classified nets' and requires a session_id, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pcb_analyze_ddr or pcb_analyze_ddr_timing_budget. There is no mention of when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer placement among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the analysis method (Fourier analysis), the inclusion of spread-spectrum clocking reduction, and the comparison to standards. However, it does not describe the return format, whether board data is required, or any limitations of the ideal trapezoidal approximation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences, 32 words, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value: method, comparison target, and included feature. No fluff or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 9 parameters and no output schema, yet the description does not explain what the result looks like (e.g., envelope values, margin, pass/fail). It also doesn't mention prerequisites or limitations. For a complex analysis tool, key contextual information is missing, though the core function is well-communicated.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds conceptual context by mentioning 'trapezoidal waveform Fourier analysis' (relating to rise_time_ns, duty_cycle) and 'spread-spectrum clocking reduction' (relating to ssc_enabled), but it does not provide parameter-level details beyond what the schema already documents.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Calculate') and resource ('clock signal harmonic EMI envelope'), plus the method ('trapezoidal waveform Fourier analysis') and comparison targets ('FCC/CISPR limits'). This distinguishes it from generic EMI tools like pcb_predict_emissions and pcb_analyze_emi_risk.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage context is implied by the focus on clock signals and harmonic analysis, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternative EMI prediction tools. It lacks exclusions or alternative tool mentions, so the guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description is the only source of behavioral detail. It states the tool computes field components and identifies dominant emitters, but doesn't describe return format, required prerequisites, or whether it accesses any board data. This is moderate transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with purpose. Every clause carries meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description should explain what the user gets back. It says 'identifies dominant emitters' and 'transition' but doesn't specify the return structure. Also lacks usage guidance. For a tool with one complex array parameter, the description is serviceable but has gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers 100% of parameters, so baseline 3. The description adds only the notion of 'various distances' and magnetic/electric dipoles, which maps loosely to source types. It does not explain when to use loop area vs trace length or how source type affects the model.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool computes H-field and E-field from PCB sources, identifies dominant emitters, and quantifies near-field/far-field transition. This distinguishes it from sister tools like pcb_analyze_current_loop and pcb_predict_emissions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The context 'Near-field probe and current loop EMI modeling' implies use for near-field analysis, but the description doesn't contrast with far-field or other EMI analysis tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses behavioral output: it 'shows how current spreads laterally' and 'what fraction is contained within N*h.' However, with no annotations, it does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, what the output format is, or what N represents. There is no annotation contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the action verb and immediate object. It contains no filler or redundant statements. The only minor flaw is the undefined 'N*h,' but the overall structure is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the 4 parameters and no output schema, the description gives a basic understanding of the tool's purpose and output, but it omits important context: units of current density, return format, meaning of N, and how parameters influence the analysis. This leaves the description incomplete for fully automated selection and invocation, though the schema covers parameter definitions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema; it does not explain how trace_height_mm or analysis_width_mm affect the result, nor does it define N in relation to parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action: 'Calculate return current density profile on reference plane beneath a signal trace.' It further details what the tool computes (lateral spreading and fraction within N*h), distinguishing it from sibling tools like pcb_trace_return_path or pcb_analyze_return_paths, though it is similar to pcb_analyze_return_current_density.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool (when return current distribution analysis is needed) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternatives to prefer. It does not mention any exclusions or distinctions from the many similar sibling tools, so usage guidance remains implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the analysis type and what it identifies/calculates, but does not mention whether it is read-only, what the return format is, or whether it requires a specific session state. Adequate but lacks deeper behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and lists specific outputs. Every clause adds value, with no redundant or filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the core purpose and key outputs, but without an output schema or annotations, it does not explain the return format, limitations, or relationship to other analysis tools. It is adequate for basic selection but not fully complete for complex use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both session_id and max_frequency_mhz documented. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding of how or when to use the parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Analyze') with a clear resource ('return paths') and an explicit scope ('all high-speed signal nets'). It further distinguishes itself by listing three concrete outputs (split-plane crossings, inadequate return vias, loop areas), differentiating it from sibling tools like pcb_find_split_crossings or pcb_trace_return_path.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'for all high-speed signal nets' implies when to use the tool, but there is no explicit guidance about alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or comparisons are provided, so usage context is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions supplying context for design review but does not disclose whether this modifies session state, whether it overwrites prior answers, or any side effects. For a tool that writes data, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two tight sentences. The first states the action, the second gives the workflow context. No redundant words, front-loaded with purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description provides workflow context and the schema is complete, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description lacks crucial behavioral details (side effects, idempotency, prerequisites). For a simple tool with well-documented parameters, it is minimally complete but not fully.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both session_id and answers. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, but the schema already suffices, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Provide answers') and clear resource ('review questions' identified by pcb_get_review_questions). It distinguishes from sibling tools like pcb_run_design_review and pcb_get_review_questions by explicitly positioning itself as the pre-review step.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
States explicitly to call 'before running design review' to supply missing context, and references the source of questions. It provides clear timing context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives beyond the implied workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the modeling approach (lossy transmission line, conductor + dielectric loss) and outputs (eye opening, jitter, pass/fail). However, it does not mention assumptions like NRZ signaling, equalization, or the nature of jitter (e.g., random vs deterministic), nor the return format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main function. Every sentence provides value: one states the core purpose, the other adds modeling and output detail. No filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex tool with 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It gives a high-level summary but doesn't explain important aspects like the 'standard' parameter's role in selecting thresholds, the type of statistical analysis, or what the estimated jitter consists of. The partial output description (eye opening, jitter, pass/fail) is a start but insufficient for full behavioral expectation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter context, only implying that loss parameters (dielectric constant, loss tangent) are part of the lossy transmission line model. It doesn't tie specific parameters to the model behavior beyond what schema descriptions already state.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description begins with 'Calculate statistical eye diagram for a high-speed serial channel,' a specific verb and resource. It further specifies the modeling approach (lossy transmission line with conductor and dielectric loss) distinguishing it from sibling tools like pcb_calc_ibis_eye, which likely uses IBIS models.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for high-speed serial channel analysis but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pcb_calc_ibis_eye or pcb_calc_pcie_link_budget. No exclusions or 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.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the IPC-2141 formula standard but does not disclose the output units (ohms), return value format, or any limitations/assumptions of the formula. This is insufficient for full transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence that is front-loaded with the main verb and resource, containing no filler or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple calculator with fully described parameters, the description is mostly adequate but lacks details about the output unit and any applicable range restrictions. The tool has no output schema, so the description should clarify what the returned impedance value represents.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides complete descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional parameter meaning. The mention of IPC-2141 formulas implies the parameters map to formula inputs, but this is already evident from the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Calculate' with a clear resource 'microstrip trace impedance' and specifies the formula standard 'IPC-2141', which differentiates it from sibling tools like stripline or differential impedance calculators.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly indicates the tool is for microstrip trace impedance calculations, giving context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like stripline or differential impedance tools, nor does it state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately conveys that the tool returns a component list, but it does not mention any side effects, prerequisites (e.g., active session), or error behavior. This is adequate but not rich, and since it's a read-only-style getter, the lack of additional detail is understandable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the purpose without any fluff or repetition. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema, the description could have elaborated on what the component list contains (e.g., reference designators, values). It is minimal but not misleading, covering the core action adequately.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions: 'session_id' and 'filter' with an example pattern. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get component list from a parsed design' clearly states a specific verb (get) and resource (component list), and it inherently distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pcb_get_nets, pcb_get_vias, and pcb_get_traces by naming 'components' as the target.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage after a design is parsed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. It is clear enough but lacks explicit guidance on context or when-not-to-use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the output type (SVG) and included board elements, which is helpful. However, without annotations, it does not explicitly state that rendering is non-destructive or that a valid session_id from pcb_parse_layout is required, leaving the agent to infer these from the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every word earns its place. It avoids repetition of schema details and remains highly scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a render tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the primary functionality and output format but omits usage context (e.g., requiring a session) and doesn't differentiate from sibling render tools. The absence of an output schema increases the burden, but the description is adequate for a basic render operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description adds value by naming 'layer filtering' and 'net/component highlighting', which correspond to the 'layers' and 'highlight_nets'/'highlight_components' parameters, thereby giving purpose to those inputs beyond their schema definitions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Render' with a clear resource 'SVG board view' and lists included elements (component placement, traces, vias). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pcb_render_net and pcb_render_stackup, which focus on different visualizations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other render tools (e.g., pcb_render_net, pcb_render_stackup). The description implies use for board-level rendering but offers no explicit alternatives, exclusions, or context such as session prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that the output is SVG and highlights traces and vias, but it does not specify how the SVG is returned (string, file, etc.) or whether the operation is read-only. The lack of return-value detail leaves the agent with ambiguity about subsequent steps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Render', and contains zero filler words. Every word contributes to specifying the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives the essential purpose and output type, but it leaves gaps such as return value format, prerequisites like a valid parsed layout, and how this relates to PNG export tools. It 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.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both net_name and session_id already described clearly. The description adds the detail that traces and vias are highlighted, which gives slight context to net_name, but this is not materially beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Render') and names the exact resource ('SVG highlighting a specific net's traces and vias on the board'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling render tools like pcb_render_board or pcb_render_stackup by focusing on a single net's highlighting task.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'specific net' implies the tool is for highlighting one net rather than rendering the whole board, but it never explicitly states when to use this over alternatives or what excludes its use. No alternative tools are mentioned, so guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses non-mutating behavior through verbs 'Compare' and 'Detects', and specifies exactly what is detected (DNP flag inconsistencies, MPN divergence, etc.). Mentioning 'Severity-graded per the playbook' gives insight into output structure, though it does not explicitly state read-only or dependency on prior parsing steps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. It packs a list of specific detection categories without unnecessary words. Every sentence earns its place, making it compact and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description explains its core function and what it detects, but it omits important context such as prerequisites (e.g., whether schematic/BOM/layout must be parsed first) and the exact return format. 'Per the playbook' is vague, and without an output schema, the agent might be uncertain about how to use the results. This is adequate but has clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has only one parameter (session_id) with 100% description coverage ('Session id.'). The tool description does not add any additional meaning to this parameter, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. It does not explain how session_id is used in the context of this cross-reference.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Compare') and clearly defines the resource ('schematic, BOM, and layout component lists') in one pass. It lists concrete detection capabilities (missing components, footprint mismatches, etc.), which distinguishes it from the sibling pcb_cross_reference_schematic by emphasizing the three-way comparison.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives. It implies use when you have all three component lists, but does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing parsed data from pcb_parse_schematic/pcb_parse_bom/pcb_parse_layout) or exclusions. The sibling pcb_cross_reference_schematic likely covers a two-way comparison, but no differentiation is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure. It does convey behavioral traits such as estimating, showing distributions, and identifying crowding. However, it omits details about the output format (e.g., a plot, list of hotspots), potential assumptions or limitations of the estimation, and any side effects or prerequisites, which leaves gaps in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that immediately state the primary purpose and then add key behavioral details. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a reasonable level of completeness. It explains what the tool estimates and what it reveals (concentration, spreading, crowding). However, it does not explicitly describe the output format or return value structure, and due to the numerical simulation context, more detail about the nature of the result (e.g., 2D field map, hotspot list) would be helpful, though the description is still informative enough for a basic understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameter names and descriptions are already self-explanatory (e.g., trace_x_start, plane_width_mm, frequency_mhz). The description adds minimal semantic context by mentioning 'reference plane beneath a signal trace' and 'plane gaps/edges' which aligns with parameters, but it does not elaborate on parameter usage beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Estimate' and the resource 'return current density distribution on a reference plane beneath a signal trace', making the tool's function specific and distinct. It further describes observable outputs (concentration under trace, spreading at low frequencies, crowding near gaps/edges) which differentiates it from siblings like pcb_analyze_return_current or pcb_visualize_return_path.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by explaining what the tool shows (current concentration and crowding), giving context for when it might be needed. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like pcb_analyze_return_current or pcb_find_split_crossings, nor does it mention exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. 'Render' implies a non-destructive read operation, but the description does not explicitly state that the board is not modified, nor does it describe the output format beyond 'SVG board view'. It also fails to mention any session prerequisites or potential errors, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that names the action, object, and key annotation types. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool requires a session_id and detailed annotation objects, but the schema fully documents those. The description confirms the output is an SVG board view, which satisfies the return expectation. Notably, it does not mention that a session must be created with pcb_parse_layout first, a minor gap for an otherwise complete description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for each parameter, including nested annotation properties. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but this is compensated by the schema's thoroughness. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Render' and resource 'SVG board view with annotation overlays', and enumerates the overlay types (arrows, text callouts, highlight regions, warning markers). This distinguishes it from sibling render tools like pcb_render_board which render the board without annotation overlays.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (for annotating a board render) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like pcb_render_board or pcb_render_net. It neither provides exclusions nor names alternative tools, so guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Calculate' implies a pure computation with no side effects, but it does not explicitly state that no design changes are made, nor describe the output format or any assumptions (e.g., frequency independence of mismatch).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the tool's purpose and key outputs without waste. Every word is informative and the structure is immediately scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple calculation tool, the description names all outputs and the schema covers all inputs, so the core context is complete. However, the inclusion of 'frequency_mhz' is not explained in the description—it is not obvious why frequency matters for a purely impedance-mismatch calculation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds no further parameter-level detail, so it stays at the baseline without compensating for any schema gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Calculate') and identifies the exact resources and outputs (return loss, S11, mismatch loss, VSWR) derived from impedance mismatch. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling calc tools like pcb_calc_insertion_loss or pcb_calc_microstrip_impedance.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It states the use case ('from impedance mismatch'), implying when to use it, but provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives among many related signal-integrity calculation tools. Clear context but no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the use of Hammerstad surface roughness correction, which is a specific behavioral detail. However, it does not state units of the outputs, any default assumptions (e.g., copper temperature), or how the calculation handles unspecified optional parameters (though the schema provides default hints).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 16 words, immediately stating the core action and outputs. It is front-loaded with 'Calculate' and every word is relevant, containing no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lists all three outputs (skin depth, AC resistance factor, conductor loss) and specifies the roughness correction model, which is sufficient for a calculator with no output schema. It does not explain output units or express typical use cases, but given the parameter schema already documents defaults, the description is nearly complete for the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers 67% of parameters (copper_thickness_oz and surface_roughness_um have descriptions, frequency_mhz does not). The description does not add parameter-level detail, but the missing frequency_mhz parameter is self-explanatory from its name. Overall, the description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with the strong verb 'Calculate' and names three specific output quantities: skin depth, AC resistance factor, and conductor loss. It also distinguishes itself from sibling calculators (e.g., pcb_calc_dielectric_loss, pcb_calc_trace_width) by explicitly mentioning the Hammerstad surface roughness correction, making its scope unique.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The intended use is implied by the description: if you need skin depth or AC loss values, you would invoke this tool. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over similar calculators (e.g., pcb_calc_insertion_loss, pcb_calc_dielectric_loss), nor any exclusion criteria or mention of alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful behavioral details: output includes confidence scores and automatic differential pair detection. However, it does not mention return format, whether the operation is read-only, or any side effects, leaving some gaps for an unannotated tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, no redundant information. Every word adds value with concrete examples and output characteristics.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives a complete picture of what the tool does and what to expect (classification with confidence scores, differential pair detection). It could mention the input requirement, but that is already covered by the schema's parameter description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter (session_id), which is well-described. The description adds no extra parameter detail, but the baseline of 3 applies since the schema fully documents the required input.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Classify all nets by function' with specific examples (power, ground, DDR, USB, PCIe) and confidence scores. It distinguishes itself from sibling analysis tools by focusing on net classification rather than interface detection or specific protocol analysis.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when net classification is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like pcb_detect_interfaces. The schema mentions a prerequisite (session_id from pcb_parse_layout), but the description itself does not address usage context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose the refusal condition and the summary contents. However, it references a non-existent 'force=true' parameter instead of the actual require_critical_verified boolean, and it does not state whether finalizing is destructive or affects the session state, reducing transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no filler. The only extra detail, the force reference, is inaccurate but not verbose, so the structure remains concise and scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a simple schema, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must explain return values and side effects. It does describe the summary contents and the gating condition, but omits the actual parameter path to force finalization and whether calling this tool closes or modifies the session. This leaves the description slightly incomplete for a finalization action.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already documents both parameters clearly. The description adds no useful parameter semantics and introduces confusion by mentioning 'force=true', which is not a parameter in the schema; the actual bypass mechanism is require_critical_verified=false. This mismatch detracts from the description's value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's role: 'Close out the multi-pass review' with a specific verb and resource. It further distinguishes itself by describing the refusal condition and the returned finalisation summary, making it distinct from sibling review, validation, and session-close tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context that this is the terminal step for a multi-pass review, implying use after review actions are complete. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the closing intent is clear enough for an agent to select it when finalizing a review.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the burden. The verb 'Get' and the enumerated return fields clearly indicate a non-mutating data retrieval operation. It does not describe error behavior or large-result handling, but for a simple getter it is adequately transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single focused sentence, front-loaded with the operation, and efficiently lists the data categories without wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
One-parameter tool with no output schema; description names the key output dimensions (areas, nets, clearances per layer), which is sufficient. Minor ambiguity about whether all pours/layers are returned, but the absence of a layer parameter implies all.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers session_id at 100% with a meaningful description, so baseline 3. Tool description adds no parameter-level semantics, but none are needed beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'copper pour/zone data' with concrete sub-items (areas, nets, clearances per layer), making it clearly distinct from sibling getters like drill tables or design rules.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this vs alternatives (e.g., pcb_analyze_copper_spreading). It does not mention prerequisites beyond session ID or any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read-only operation ('get') and names the returned parameters (field strength, BCI current), but does not disclose details about return format, units, validation of the 'level' parameter, or any side effects. For a simple query tool this is adequate but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It conveys the essential information without any wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers its purpose and key outputs. It could mention units or return structure, but for a standards-parameter lookup this is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%: the only parameter 'level' is fully described as 'Test level (1-5, default 3)'. The tool description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves ISO 11452 immunity test level parameters, specifically field strength and BCI current. It uses a specific verb ('get') and names the exact standard (ISO 11452), distinguishing it from related standards like CISPR 25 (pcb_get_cispr25_limit).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when needing ISO 11452 parameters, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as pcb_get_cispr25_limit or pcb_analyze_immunity_margin. There is no clear exclusions or alternative guidance, only that it is a getter for this standard.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description alone carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns a list of vias, but does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation, nor does it mention session requirements or limitations. For a simple getter, this is minimal but not misleading.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose without fluff. It earns its place with zero wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it states what is retrieved and the context. However, it does not specify the return format or note that a valid session is required, which leaves a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already describes session_id as 'Session ID', and the description's 'from a parsed design' adds mild context linking the session to a design. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 applies without additional parameter detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get via list from a parsed design' uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('via list'), and 'parsed design' gives context. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like pcb_get_traces or pcb_get_drill_table.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'from a parsed design' implies it should be used after a design is parsed, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives. No exclusions or comparisons with sibling tools are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the analysis pipeline (classification, analyzer selection, cross-correlation, structured output), which is useful. However, it does not mention potential side effects, prerequisites beyond the session_id (which is in the schema), runtime expectations, or how the 'structured results' are delivered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and then efficiently enumerates the workflow. Every phrase adds value, with no redundant or vague filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex orchestrator tool with no output schema, the description provides a good high-level overview of the workflow and clearly ties to the session_id input. However, it leaves unspecified what the 'structured results' contain, how they are formatted, or how the agent should interpret or act on them, which is a notable gap for such a broad tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage for the single session_id parameter, and its description 'Session ID from pcb_parse_layout' is clear. The tool description adds no parameter-specific detail, but given the high 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.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('Run full automated multi-domain design review') and outlines the multi-step process: classify, select analyzers, run analysis, cross-correlate, and generate results. This distinguishes it from the many single-domain analyzer siblings and from other review-related tools that focus on specific aspects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for a comprehensive multi-domain review but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like pcb_start_professional_review or individual analyzers. No exclusion criteria or direct comparison to sibling tools is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool 'traces' and 'shows' information, implying a read-only analysis, but does not explicitly state that it makes no modifications, requires no special permissions, or note any limitations. It adds detail about output content, but lacks explicit safety/behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the primary action and then lists key output aspects. Every phrase adds useful information with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with two simple parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what information it returns. It does not explicitly address prerequisites beyond using session_id, but the key usage context is clear. A more explicit distinction from similar tools would make it fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters (net_name and session_id), and the description merely reinforces net_name without adding new semantic detail. The schema already documents the purpose of each parameter, so the description adds marginal value beyond the structured field descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb+resource construction: 'Trace ground return current path for a specific net.' It clearly identifies the tool's function and scope, and lists concrete output elements (return path segments, loop area, split crossings, via transition quality) that distinguish it from broader sibling tools like pcb_analyze_return_paths.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for analyzing a specific net's return path, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over similar siblings such as pcb_analyze_return_paths or pcb_visualize_return_path. No exclusions or alternative guidance are provided, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the modeling approach (trapezoidal harmonics, LISN) and standards, but does not mention limitations, output format, or how compliance results are reported, which is a gap for a simulation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with front-loaded purpose and no redundant words. The first sentence states the core function; the second adds technical modeling context. Every clause contributes meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain return values. It covers the model and standards well but omits how results are presented (e.g., pass/fail, violation margins), leaving some uncertainty for the agent in a complex simulation context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds overall context but no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides. It does not clarify units or usage for any individual parameter beyond schema definitions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool predicts conducted emissions from an SMPS using a LISN model and checks compliance with CISPR 25 and FCC Part 15. This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from siblings like pcb_analyze_smps_emi or pcb_predict_emissions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear context: intended for SMPS conducted emissions analysis with a specific frequency range and standards. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when to prefer this over related tools such as pcb_analyze_smps_emi or pcb_get_cispr25_limit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It accurately describes the analysis logic and the guideline, but does not explicitly state that it is read-only or describe the output format. Since the tool is an analysis/flagging operation, the risk of unexpected side effects is low, but the description could be more explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, scope, and criterion. No filler words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple analysis tool with two parameters, the description covers the core behavior well. However, without an output schema, it does not specify the return format or whether it returns a list of flagged ICs, capacitor counts, etc. This is a moderate gap, but the overall behavior is understandable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Both parameters are fully described in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context by referencing the 1-cap-per-Vdd-pin guideline, which aligns with the default of min_caps_per_vdd_pin, but does not introduce new parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: iterating over ICs, counting capacitors on Vdd-class nets, and flagging under-decoupled ICs. It specifies the resource (ICs, Vdd nets) and the action (count, flag), distinguishing it from broader decoupling analysis tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description conveys the intended use case: per-IC decoupling assessment relative to a cap-per-Vdd-pin guideline. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it, but the context is clear from the per-IC scope.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the analytical model and that it compares against emission limits, which is useful. However, it omits behavioral details like what output is produced, whether it requires a PCB layout context, or any limitations/assumptions of the model.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and outcome. Each sentence adds a distinct piece of information: scope, methodology, and comparison behavior. There is no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 10 parameters and no output schema. The description covers the modeling approach and the comparison to limits, but it does not state what the returned result contains (e.g., harmonic spectrum, pass/fail margins, near-field values). Given the complexity and the absence of an output schema, this is a noticeable completeness gap, though the description is still substantive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions and defaults, so the baseline is 3. The description adds conceptual context by tying parameters to the model: trapezoidal current harmonics relate to rise_time_ns, num_harmonics, and duty_cycle; hot loop radiation relates to pcb_loop_area_cm2; and limit comparison maps to limit_standard. This elevates understanding beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Calculate' and clearly identifies the resource: 'SMPS switching harmonic EMI from hot loop radiation.' It further names the modeling approach (trapezoidal current waveform harmonics through a magnetic dipole antenna model) and the comparison to emission limits. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pcb_analyze_conducted_emissions or pcb_analyze_common_mode.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies its use for SMPS radiated EMI estimation but provides no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance. It does not mention alternatives such as pcb_analyze_clock_emi or pcb_predict_emissions, which is a notable gap given the large sibling toolset.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It details the physics models (skin effect, Hammerstad roughness, dielectric loss, mismatch loss), but does not specify assumptions (e.g., microstrip vs. stripline) or the return format, which is important given the lack of an output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, starting with the primary purpose and followed by a concise list of loss mechanisms. Every word is useful, and no irrelevant information is included.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description gives a high-level overview but leaves gaps about geometry assumptions and output details. It mentions frequency-swept calculation and loss models, but does not specify whether it applies to microstrip or stripline traces, nor what the result structure looks like.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes each of the 10 parameters with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description does not elaborate on parameter usage beyond mentioning loss models, which aligns with the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool calculates frequency-swept insertion loss (S21) and return loss (S11) for a PCB trace, which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like pcb_calc_return_loss that likely focus on S11 only. The mention of specific loss models (conductor, dielectric, mismatch) further clarifies its scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context by stating it computes both S21 and S11 over a frequency sweep and models conductor, dielectric, and mismatch losses. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when to use this tool over pcb_calc_return_loss or pcb_calc_dielectric_loss, though the combined functionality is implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must reveal behavior. It does disclose the calculation method (summing trace, connector, via, and package losses and comparing against the PCIe spec), but it omits details about the output format, assumptions for loss models, and any limitations. The equalizer margin is mentioned but not defined.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences and 22 words, with the main purpose front-loaded and every sentence contributing useful information. There is no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description provides a good high-level summary of the tool's function and algorithm, but it does not describe the return values or structure (which is especially important since there is no output schema), nor does it mention assumptions about loss modeling or defaults for optional parameters like dielectric_constant or loss_tangent. Given the tool's 8 parameters and no output schema, a bit more detail is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explicitly mapping the sum of trace, connector, via, and package losses to the respective input parameters, and it clarifies that the comparison uses the PCIe generation spec. However, it does not explain the role of material properties like loss_tangent or dielectric_constant.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Calculate') and a clear resource ('PCIe link insertion loss budget and equalizer margin'), and it explains the core algorithm (summing losses and comparing to spec), distinguishing it from generic insertion-loss tools and broader PCIe analysis tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for PCIe link budget analysis, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over similar ones like pcb_calc_insertion_loss or pcb_analyze_pcie, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It explains the output is a standalone OpenEMS FDTD script and ties it to a specific candidate, but it omits details like return format, side effects, or whether the simulation actually runs. This is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and no waste. The second sentence provides a key prerequisite. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is short and mentions the prerequisite tool, but with no output schema it does not clarify what the tool returns (e.g., script content vs. file path) or what next steps might be (e.g., pcb_validate_with_openems). This is sufficient for basic invocation but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents session_id and candidate_index. The description adds the relationship to pcb_extract_simulation_candidates, but does not significantly expand on the parameter meanings beyond that. Baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Generate a standalone OpenEMS FDTD simulation script' for a specific candidate. This specific verb+resource phrasing distinguishes it from sibling tools like pcb_validate_with_openems or pcb_compare_simulation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says 'Use pcb_extract_simulation_candidates first to get available candidates,' providing a clear prerequisite and usage context. It does not mention when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, but the context is strong.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool retrieves templates, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly mention side effects, limitations, or return format. The description is accurate but minimal, without disclosing behavioral traits beyond the get action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without redundant words or extraneous details. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (zero params, no output schema), yet the description is brief. It tells the user they will get templates with impedances, but it doesn't specify what 'common' includes (e.g., layer counts, standards) or the structure of the returned data. Since there is no output schema, the description could provide more detail, but it is adequate for a basic template-list tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100% (an empty object). With no parameters to document, the baseline is 4. The description adds meaningful context about the output (templates with typical impedances), which helps the agent understand what to expect even though parameter semantics are not applicable.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: getting common PCB stackup templates with typical impedances. The verb 'get' and resource 'stackup templates' are specific, and the mention of 'common' and 'typical impedances' distinguishes it from sibling tools like pcb_get_stackup (which likely retrieves the current design's stackup) and pcb_optimize_stackup.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving standard templates but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as pcb_get_stackup. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, only contextual hints from the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the calculation method (lambda/20 rule) and that the tool accounts for existing vias and plane gaps. The word 'suggests' implies a non-destructive, advisory operation, but the description does not explicitly state side effects, return format, or permissions, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and then provides the key method and constraints, making it highly scannable and information-dense.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lacks output details. Since there is no output schema, the agent cannot know whether the tool returns a list of via locations, a spacing value, or both. It does mention 'suggests via locations' as a hint, but not the structure or format. Given the tool's complexity, this is a notable gap, though input coverage is strong.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the algorithmic relationship: lambda/20 rule ties max_frequency_mhz and dielectric_constant to spacing, and 'accounting for existing vias and plane gaps' clarifies the role of existing_vias and plane_gaps. This goes beyond the schema's field-level descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('optimize') and resource ('ground via stitching pattern for a reference plane'), and further defines the scope with the lambda/20 rule and awareness of existing vias and plane gaps. This distinguishes it from siblings like pcb_calc_via_stitching, which likely only calculates spacing, and pcb_analyze_ground_stitch, which likely analyzes an existing pattern.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for optimizing ground via stitching, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like pcb_calc_via_stitching or pcb_analyze_ground_stitch. No exclusionary guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer selection from the tool name and context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that it calculates per-lane propagation delay and max skew, which gives insight into its computational behavior. However, it does not specify the output format (e.g., pass/fail verdict), potential side effects, or validation criteria, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a brief explanation of the calculation. Every word is meaningful with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a nested object parameter and no output schema, yet the description doesn't clarify the return structure or what 'validate' means in terms of output. It provides a reasonable overview but leaves the agent uncertain about the result type (e.g., skew values vs. pass/fail), which is a moderate completeness gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema already thoroughly documents each parameter, including formats and defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses specific verb 'Validate' and resource 'PCIe lane-to-lane skew against generation-specific spec limits'. It clearly distinguishes from broader siblings like pcb_analyze_pcie and pcb_calc_pcie_link_budget by focusing on skew validation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context for when to use the tool (validating PCIe lane skew against spec limits). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is specific enough to imply usage without ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the persistent effect of excluding the finding from counts on subsequent reviews, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not state whether the action is reversible, whether specific permissions are needed, or what happens to the provided reason.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary action and immediately explains the follow-on consequence, making it easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple state-changing action with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and effect. It lacks minor details like reversibility or session requirement, but the core behavior is sufficiently described.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already describes two of three parameters (reason, finding_hash) with 67% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail and does not address the undocumented session_id. However, the existing schema descriptions are clear enough that the missing session_id is relatively minor.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb 'Mark' with direct object 'finding' and specifies the classification as 'accepted/false positive.' It further distinguishes by noting the consequence 'excluded from counts on subsequent reviews,' which clearly separates it from mere listing or review actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the use case: when you want to accept a finding as a false positive. It provides context about the effect on subsequent review counts, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or situations where this tool should not be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description discloses analytical behavior beyond the name: 'Calculates all TM modes, Q factors, peak impedances, identifies problematic modes near common clocks, and provides decoupling cap recommendations.' No annotations exist, so this is the sole source of transparency. It doesn't mention side effects, but analysis tools are read-only; description adds useful output expectations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a list of calculated outputs. No redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covered by schema (all params), description explains key outputs and recommendations. No output schema means description carries extra weight for return value expectations; it does this by listing outputs. Slight gap: no guidance on input constraints or use cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema provides 100% parameter descriptions with defaults (loss_tangent, max_frequency_hz). Description adds no additional parameter semantics, only general context about modes and clocks. Baseline 3 due to schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb+resource: 'Detailed power/ground plane cavity resonance analysis' with specific outputs (TM modes, Q factors, peak impedances) and value-add (decap recommendations). Distinguishes from sibling pcb_calc_plane_resonance via 'detailed' and 'cavity resonance' specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implied usage from 'Detailed power/ground plane cavity resonance analysis' and the list of calculations. No explicit mention of when to choose this vs. alternatives like pcb_calc_plane_resonance or pcb_analyze_decoupling. Provides clear context but no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what the tool does (finds differences in listed categories), but does not explicitly state whether it is read-only or any side effects, nor does it mention error behavior or prerequisites. This is acceptable but lacks full transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and lists specific comparison categories. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the main functionality and parameter context sufficiently for a comparison tool with simple inputs. However, since there is no output schema, it could have clarified the return format or any prerequisites (e.g., sessions must be parsed), but the absence is not critical for this simple use case.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides complete descriptions for both parameters (session_id_a as 'before' and session_id_b as 'after'), so the description adds little beyond restating the comparison scope. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since schema coverage is 100% and no additional parameter semantics are needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Compare') and clearly identifies the resource ('two design revisions') and the specific comparison dimensions (board size, layer count, components, nets). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pcb_compare_simulation, which compare simulations rather than designs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly conveys when to use the tool: when you need to compare design revisions and identify specific types of differences. It provides context but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it, which prevents a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses the tool's analysis behavior (finding missing/extra components, value mismatches, unrouted nets) and the requirement for both schematic and layout data. It does not describe potential side effects or return format, but for a read-only cross-reference tool, the behavioral disclosure is adequate and exceeds a baseline 3.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by the key output categories and a prerequisite. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity and the lack of an output schema, the description provides a complete enough overview: it states the action, the specific discrepancy types it finds, and the data prerequisite. It does not detail the return structure, but that is not required when no output schema exists and the description already lists the output categories.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter, session_id, is already fully described in the schema as 'Session ID with both schematic and layout data loaded.' The description's mention of requiring both datasets mirrors the schema without adding new semantic detail. With 100% 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.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Cross-reference' and identifies the resource (schematic components/nets against layout), along with the concrete outputs (missing components, extra components, value mismatches, unrouted nets). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'pcb_three_way_cross_reference', which may perform a similar but broader comparison, so it falls short of a full 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly states the necessary precondition: 'Requires both schematic and layout data in the session.' This provides practical context for when to use the tool. It does not, however, explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions return values (component values, insertion loss curve, compliance assessment), but does not specify whether the operation is read-only, what assumptions are made (e.g., default impedance), or any limitations. It adds some context but not a full behavioral profile.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and includes only essential information about the topologies and outputs. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the tool's purpose, inputs, and outputs, and the schema has high coverage. However, it lacks details on how filter type selection works (e.g., auto mode) and the exact nature of the 'compliance assessment,' which could be important for an agent to set expectations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description only restates the purpose of the main inputs ('failure frequencies' and 'required attenuation') without adding new meaning or relationships between parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Design') and resource ('EMI filter'), enumerating supported topologies. It distinguishes itself from sibling analysis tools like pcb_analyze_emi_risk by focusing on filter design and output of component values.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context 'for given failure frequencies and required attenuation,' implying use when these inputs are available. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the key side effect (writing PNG files to a directory) and the return shape (label-to-file-path mapping). It does not mention directory creation/overwrite behavior or potential failure modes, leaving some behavioral uncertainty for an exported filesystem write operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single well-structured sentence states the action, the included render set, the output format/location, and the return value. No filler or redundant restatement of schema fields.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a simple 3-parameter schema, no annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns. Minor gaps remain around file creation details, but the core selection-and-invocation context is present.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the description need not repeat parameter details. It adds helpful context by introducing the concept of labels and standard render types, but does not deepen semantics for width_px, output_dir, or session_id beyond the schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses specific verb 'Generate and export all standard renders', enumerates exact asset types (board, stackup, key nets, annotated findings), and specifies PNG output to a directory. This clearly distinguishes it from individual render/export siblings like pcb_render_board and pcb_export_render_png.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'all standard renders' establishes clear context for batch use versus individual render tools, and the return mapping implies a complete export workflow. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions 'tailored to the detected interfaces and design characteristics' and the need for a session, but does not disclose potential side effects, prerequisites beyond a session, or behavior if called at the wrong time.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and no wasted words. Efficiently conveys what, when, and what to expect.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: when to call and what it returns. It lacks details on question format, but that is not critical for this retrieval tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the parameter is already described as 'Session ID from pcb_parse_layout'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses specific verb 'get' and resource 'list of questions', clearly distinguishing this from siblings like pcb_answer_review_questions and pcb_run_design_review. It states exactly what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly provides sequencing with 'Call after parsing, before running review', giving clear context on when to use. It does not name alternatives but implies the correct stage in the workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the tool returns either a cached/fallback value with a 'pending_refresh' flag or a deferred next-action against mcp__emc-regulations__*. This reveals important runtime behavior (potential for deferred actions) beyond what the schema shows. It could go further by explaining the semantics of 'pending_refresh' or the deferred action structure, but it is substantially transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second explains the dual return behavior. There is no filler or redundant information. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema, so the description must explain return values, which it does by naming the two return modes and the 'pending_refresh' flag. It also hints at the deferred next-action pattern. However, it omits details like what happens when fallback is false and the sibling is unreachable, or what the deferred action's arguments are. Given the tool's moderate complexity, this is a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides. For example, it doesn't explain how 'class_or_level' interacts with 'standard' or what 'fallback' does in detail. It relies on the schema, which is adequate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Look up a regulatory limit from the emc-regulations sibling MCP.' This clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling tools like pcb_get_cispr25_limit, which target specific standards. The mention of the sibling MCP and return behavior further clarifies its unique role.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool (whenever a regulatory limit is needed from emc-regulations) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like pcb_get_cispr25_limit or pcb_get_iso11452_level. It lacks clear 'use this instead of X when...' guidance, so it is only minimally viable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the parse-and-attach behavior and mentions the session, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., replacing existing BOM data), error handling, or return value. This is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, input types, and purpose. No redundant or filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the core behavior and downstream purpose. It could mention whether the session must already exist or whether the BOM replaces existing data, but these are implied by schema descriptions and the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context by explaining that file_path is a BOM file and session_id is used to attach items, but it doesn't add new syntax or format details beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses specific verb 'Parse' with resource 'BOM (CSV or Excel)' and clarifies the purpose: attaching items to the session for downstream analyzers. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that parse other file types (schematic, layout, STEP).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It states the intended use context (for downstream cross-reference and rating analyzers) and implies that this tool is for BOM files. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the description gives clear context about when to use it versus other parsing tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully discloses the text-layer extraction dependency, pymupdf requirement, and the session-attaching side effect. However, it does not mention what happens when the text layer is absent, error conditions, or the structure of the returned data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then a concise dependency note, then the optional behavior. No filler or redundancy; every sentence contributes useful information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple 2-parameter schema and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, an important dependency/limitation (text-layer extraction, pymupdf), and the optional session attachment behavior. It does not delve into return format or failure modes, but the main usage context is sufficiently clear for an agent to select and invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema: it reiterates file_path as the PDF path and session_id as the session to attach to, and adds the kind of data extracted (component references, net labels, page data) but no new parameter-specific details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Parse' and clearly identifies the resource ('PDF schematic') and the extraction targets ('component references, net labels, and page data'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pcb_parse_schematic by explicitly focusing on PDF input and text-layer extraction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: for parsing PDF schematics with a text layer, and notes the dependency on pymupdf. It also explains the optional session_id behavior, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions relative to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses what data is extracted and that a session_id is returned, but it does not mention whether this is a state-changing operation (e.g., creating/updating a session), potential side effects, or error conditions. The behavioral traits are partially surfaced but not fully transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence adds value: the first states the purpose, the second lists outputs and return value. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parsing tool with no output schema, the description explains the key deliverables (outline, bounding boxes, heights, session_id). It lacks details on file format nuances, size limits, or error handling, but that is acceptable given the tool's niche role and rich sibling context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and both parameters have clear descriptions (file_path, session_id). The description adds no extra parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema already provides. It reinforces the output (session_id) but not enough to exceed the baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool parses STEP files for 3D mechanical review, with a specific verb 'Parse' and resource '.step/.stp' file. It enumerates concrete outputs (board outline, component bounding boxes, heights) and return value (session_id), distinguishing it from sibling analysis and rendering tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'for 3D mechanical review' gives clear context for when to use this tool, and the schema for session_id indicates merging into an existing session. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the unique purpose (STEP parsing) is sufficiently differentiated from the many siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently explains that the tool calculates emission levels per harmonic and compares to regulatory limits, which is a clear read-only computation. It does not mention prerequisites like a valid session, but that is covered in the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with no fluff. The first sentence gives the purpose, and the second explains the calculation/comparison. Well-structured and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description adequately covers the core functionality and the output (emission spectrum vs limits). It does not explain the return format or session dependency, but the schema documents all parameters. For a computation tool with 3 well-documented parameters, this is sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema already provides for 'standard', 'session_id', and 'test_distance_m'. It only loosely hints at the standard via 'FCC/CISPR'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool predicts radiated emission spectrum and compares each harmonic to FCC/CISPR limits. This is a specific verb+resource with enough detail to distinguish it from sibling tools like conducted emissions or EMI risk analysis.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for radiated emission compliance checking but does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives like pcb_predict_compliance or pcb_analyze_conducted_emissions. No exclusions or alternative guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. It discloses the main behavior—returns a standalone Python script—and the supported model types, but does not state whether the tool executes the simulation, requires an existing design, or has side effects. This is moderate transparency, not complete.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and output. Each sentence is useful: what it generates, what models it supports, and what it returns. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (11 params, no output schema), the description provides essential context: it returns a script, validates specific results, and supports four models. The schema fills in parameter-model mapping. The description is adequately complete, though it could mention whether the script is executed elsewhere.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates the model types already in the enum and adds no extra meaning about parameter applicability or relationships.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Generate' and the deliverable 'an OpenEMS FDTD simulation script', with a specific purpose of validating analytical impedance/radiation results. It also lists supported model types, distinguishing it from siblings like analytical calculator tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'to validate analytical impedance/radiation results' explicitly indicates when to use this tool. It also lists supported model types, giving clear context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently outlines the calculation pipeline (induced voltage -> threshold comparison -> per-interface dB margins), giving the agent a clear expectation of the tool's non-mutating analysis behavior. It lacks explicit statements about side effects, but the phrasing makes it evident this is a read-only 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the purpose ('Immunity margin analysis with coupling path model') and then efficiently describes the technical flow in a compact manner. Every sentence contributes meaningful information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is moderately complex (3 parameters, no output schema), yet the description covers the essential action and return concept ('returns per-interface margins in dB'). Input details are handled by the comprehensive schema. It could be improved by noting the structure of the return object, but this is not a critical omission given the explicit mention of dB margins per interface.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds conceptual context (e.g., coupling path model, IC upset/damage thresholds) that complements the schema, but it does not significantly elaborate on parameter syntax or formatting beyond what the schema already documents. For example, it does not mention how 'iso_level' interacts with 'field_strength_vm', even though the schema has that detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with specific verbs and resources: 'Calculates induced voltage at IC pins from electric-field coupling and BCI', 'compares to IC upset/damage thresholds', and 'returns per-interface margins in dB'. It distinguishes itself from sibling analysis tools by focusing on immunity margin and BCI, making its purpose unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context by opening with 'Immunity margin analysis with coupling path model', which implies when to use the tool (for immunity margin calculations). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions relative to sibling tools like pcb_analyze_common_mode or pcb_analyze_cable_coupling, so it stops short of a direct comparison.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently lists the checks performed (fan-out, contention, debug header presence, supervisor IC) and uses action verbs like 'Trace' and 'Flags', making the tool's behavior predictable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, each carrying essential information: the first defines scope, the second enumerates checks. The description is front-loaded and every word contributes, with no filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter analysis tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what it does and what conditions it flags. It doesn't explicitly describe the return format, but the 'flags' wording implies findings, which is sufficiently clear for this low-complexity tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage for session_id, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('Trace') and the resources it acts on (clock distribution, reset distribution, and JTAG/SWD accessibility). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pcb_analyze_clock_emi or pcb_detect_interfaces, which focus on different aspects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool by listing specific conditions it flags (fan-out >4, multi-driver contention, missing debug headers, missing supervisor IC). This gives clear context for its use, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and handles it well. It discloses the modeling approach (parallel RLC networks), the sweep behavior (freq_start to freq_stop), and the flagging criterion (target impedance formula). This gives the agent a solid mental model of how the tool operates, though it does not mention output format or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the primary purpose, and the following sentences add necessary technical detail without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (12 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core model, sweep mechanics, and the key impedance target formula. It does not explain return values or clarify differences from similar PDN/decoupling tools, but the provided information is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role and basic invocation. It falls short of full completeness due to these omissions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how parameters map to the model (e.g., plane capacitance relates to plane_area_mm2, dielectric_constant, dielectric_height_mm) and by defining Z_target = V * ripple% / I_max, which semantically links supply_voltage_v, ripple_percent, and max_current_a. This extra context justifies a score above baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb+resource: 'Frequency-swept PDN impedance profiling.' It elaborates with modeling details (VRM, bulk caps, MLCC decaps, plane capacitance as parallel RLC networks) and the specific action of flagging anti-resonance peaks exceeding a calculated target impedance. This clearly distinguishes it from broader PDN analysis tools like pcb_analyze_pdn or pcb_analyze_decoupling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for frequency-swept PDN impedance analysis and anti-resonance checking, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. No sibling tool is mentioned as a substitute, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the technical wording alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the output characteristics (interactive, self-contained, collapsible sections, severity filtering, embedded images, print-friendly) and the required precondition. It does not mention side effects or error handling, but overall conveys key behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and lists relevant features. Every phrase adds value without unnecessary padding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 4 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context about the output format and a critical dependency. It could be more complete by explicitly naming sibling alternatives, but overall it's solid.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds general context about the output but does not elaborate on individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: generating an interactive, self-contained HTML design review report with specific features (collapsible sections, severity filtering, embedded images, print-friendly styles). This distinguishes it from sibling report generators by specifying format and capabilities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear prerequisite ('Must run pcb_run_design_review first'), indicating when to use this tool. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for typical usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the tool produces (prioritized tests, setup instructions, failure frequencies, equipment, duration estimates) and that it consumes risk findings. It is clear this is a generation tool, and the description provides useful output details beyond the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and output contents. Every phrase adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has only one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns by listing the key components of the plan. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's function without requiring additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers 100% of the parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond saying the input is 'design review risk findings,' which aligns with the schema but does not enhance it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Auto-generate') and resource ('prioritized pre-compliance test plan') with a clear source ('from design review risk findings'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools, as none of the siblings generate test plans.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: it is meant to be used after design review risk findings are available. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the workflow is implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the tool returns and explicitly lists the report contents, including identifying stubs and unimplemented standards. It also frames the output as gaps for human review. While it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, 'Return' and 'surfaces' strongly imply a non-mutating operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence packs specific content details, and the second adds practical purpose. The verb and resource are front-loaded, making it easy to scan and understand.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter getter with no output schema, the description adequately explains what the report contains (analyzers run, required, stub/unimplemented standards) and why to use it (resolve gaps before sign-off). It could mention output format or error behavior, but those are not necessary for basic usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one parameter, session_id, described as 'Session id.' The description adds only 'for the session,' which minimally reinforces the role of the parameter. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3; the description does not meaningfully compensate for the thin schema description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Return' and the specific resource 'per-standard coverage report for the session,' then enumerates the report's contents (which analyzers ran, which are required, which standards are stub/unimplemented). This distinguishes it from other pcb_get_* tools, which address different resources like design rules or drill tables.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides context by stating that the tool 'surfaces gaps the human reviewer should resolve before final sign-off,' implying when in the review workflow it should be used. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the intended usage is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states the return value (session_id) and the side effect of writing parsed data into an existing session when session_id is supplied, preserving playbook state. It doesn't mention error handling or file access constraints, but the core state-changing behavior is disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long with no fluff. The first sentence declares the action and supported formats, while the second explains the output and optional session reuse. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of an output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential elements: supported formats, return value, and optional session integration. It doesn't address potential errors or format-specific nuances, but it provides enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All three parameters have full descriptions in the input schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new semantics beyond repeating the format list and session_id behavior already captured in the schema, thus it neither enhances nor detracts from parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Parse a PCB layout file' and lists explicit formats (KiCad, ODB++, Gerber, Altium, IPC-2581), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like pcb_parse_schematic and pcb_parse_bom. It also states the output ('Returns session_id'), making the tool's primary function unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context by explaining how to integrate with pcb_start_professional_review and the effect of supplying a session_id (preserves playbook state). However, it stops short of explicitly stating when not to use this tool or naming alternative parse tools for other file types, so it's not a full usage guideline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a stateful lifecycle (populated/drained) and the dependency on pcb_run_design_review and pcb_attach_external_result. This is useful beyond the static schema, and there is no contradiction with any annotation (none provided).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the lifecycle in the second sentence. Every word adds value with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description adequately explains the tool's purpose, its place in the workflow, and its integration with related tools. It lacks explicit detail about return structure or edge-case behavior, but given the rich schema and the tool's simple queue-like nature, it is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema already provides; it focuses on the tool's role rather than param semantics. This is acceptable given the schema fully documents each parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns a prioritised list of sibling-MCP calls to execute, with specific categories (openEMS / NEC2 / emc-regulations / drawio). This distinguishes it from the many analysis tools by framing it as an action-queue provider, not a domain calculator.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear workflow context: it is populated by pcb_run_design_review, drained as the agent calls suggested tools, and results are fed back via pcb_attach_external_result. This implies when to call it (after a design review) and how it fits into the overall sequence, though it doesn't explicitly list alternative tools or exclusion cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool 'refuses to advance' when conditions are unmet, which is a key behavioral trait, and states it returns a 'ValidationGate breakdown.' This gives the agent a clear picture of the tool's gating behavior and output without needing to execute it.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences that front-load the action and then detail the conditions concisely. Every element earns its place, with no redundant wording. It is highly scannable and efficient for an agent to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one param, no output schema), the description adequately covers its purpose, the three validation conditions, and the return value. It could slightly clarify what 'active markets' refers to, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's role and outcome.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter, session_id, is already described in the schema as 'Session id.' (100% schema coverage). The description does not add further parameter context, but for a simple session identifier, this baseline coverage is sufficient. No additional semantics are needed, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function as a 'preflight gate' with specific validation criteria (required questions answered, standard selected, no stub standards lacking human-review notes). This verb+resource description distinguishes it from sibling tools like pcb_finalize_review or pcb_run_design_review, which have different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The opening 'Run the preflight gate' establishes the tool's role as a prerequisite check before advancing in the review workflow. It implies this should be used before finalization or further review steps, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer when to invoke it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It explicitly states that the action is marked complete and that the linked finding's verified/confidence/source fields are updated based on the result. This is a transparent disclosure of the primary state mutations, though it does not discuss reversibility or the error-handling path.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the main action. Every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's purpose or side effects.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema, but the description explains what happens upon invocation, which is the primary need. It could clarify the error path (what happens when 'error' is passed) but the core behavior is sufficiently covered for a simple state-update tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers all parameters, but the description adds meaningful semantics by linking the 'result' parameter to the update of specific finding fields. This goes beyond the schema's bare 'Raw result returned by the sibling MCP' and helps an agent understand how the result is interpreted.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Feed' and names the resource ('a sibling-MCP result', 'the session') and the outcomes ('marks the matching action complete', 'updates the linked finding's verified/confidence/source fields'). It clearly distinguishes this bookkeeping/result-attachment tool from the many analysis-focused sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description establishes clear context: it is used after a sibling MCP has produced a result, and mentions the orchestrator's role. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the contextual trigger is plainly indicated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the key side effect: 'Populates schematic_components and schematic_nets on the session.' It also mentions auto format detection. However, it does not specify behaviors like session creation/reuse or whether existing data is overwritten.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences that lead with the core purpose, then state the side effect and usage alternative. Every sentence adds value; no fluff or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description does a good job of explaining what the tool does, what formats it supports, what data it populates, and how it relates to a sibling. It lacks some details about return values or session lifecycle, but for a parse-and-store tool, the key contextual elements are present.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantic value by listing concrete file extensions (.kicad_sch, .SchDoc, .pdf, .net) and explaining the 'auto' format detection behavior, which complements the format parameter's enum. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Parse a schematic file' with auto format detection. It enumerates supported formats and specifies the side effect (populates schematic_components/schematic_nets). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool pcb_parse_schematic_pdf by noting it is the format-agnostic option.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage direction: 'Use over pcb_parse_schematic_pdf when you want format-agnostic parsing.' It names a specific alternative and the condition for choosing this tool. However, it does not fully describe when not to use the tool or prerequisites like session handling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool updates the session's question pack and standards shortlist, and clarifies append/replace semantics through examples. Could mention prerequisites or side effects, but it is reasonably transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three concise sentences: the first states the primary action, the second gives examples, and the third explains the effect and recommended call order. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers purpose, effect on the session, and workflow ordering. The schema supplies complete parameter details, including sub_options. It does not explain the return value, but for a setter with no output schema, that is acceptable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema fully describes each parameter, but the description adds contextual meaning by showing how market_id and replace interact (switching vs adding) and the consequence for the question pack. This enriches the parameter semantics beyond field-level details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set or add a market') and the resource ('an existing review session'), with concrete examples. It is distinct from sibling tools, which focus on analysis or other session operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides clear usage context ('Call before pcb_get_review_questions to receive the merged pack') and explains what the tool updates. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses that the tool classifies files, selects market-specific packs, and returns a binding playbook to follow. It does not mention side effects or state changes, but for an entry-point tool this is acceptable and arguably complete. It also references external docs for further detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, front-loaded with 'ENTRY POINT', and every sentence adds value: purpose, usage order, and outcome. The docs reference is a useful pointer without clutter. Ideal conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description clearly states what is returned (the P0-P8 playbook) and what processing happens. For a start tool, this is complete: it describes inputs, behavior, and return value. The referenced docs fill any residual need for playbook details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context by relating input files and market selection to the tool's behavior, but it does not add new parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., enums, defaults).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states this tool is the entry point for a design review, using the specific verb 'Call this FIRST' and listing concrete actions: classifies input files, selects question packs and standards, and returns the 8-pass playbook. This strongly distinguishes it from the sibling analyzer/parser tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly instructs to 'Call this FIRST, before any parser or analyzer', providing unambiguous when-to-use guidance. The description also defines the tool's scope (entry point for the full review workflow), making it clear that all other tools are downstream alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
GitHub Badge
Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:
- Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
- Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
- Evaluate tool definition quality.
Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.
Card Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
MCP directory API
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/RFingAdam/mcp-pcb-emcopilot'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server