pcb_analyze_cable_coupling

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.

Is 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.

Given 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.

Does 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.

Does 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.

Does 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.