pcb_analyze_automotive_emc

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.

Is 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.

Given 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.

Does 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.

Does 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.

Does 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.