pcb_analyze_common_mode

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.

Is 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.

Given 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.

Does 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.

Does 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.

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 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.