pcb_analyze_clock_emi

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.

Is 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.

Given 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.

Does 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.

Does 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.

Does 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.