pcb_analyze_cavity_resonance

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.

Is 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.

Given 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.

Does 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.

Does 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.

Does 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.