pcb_analyze_conducted_emissions

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the modeling approach (trapezoidal harmonics, LISN) and standards, but does not mention limitations, output format, or how compliance results are reported, which is a gap for a simulation tool.

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?

Two sentences with front-loaded purpose and no redundant words. The first sentence states the core function; the second adds technical modeling context. Every clause contributes meaning.

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 no output schema, so the description should explain return values. It covers the model and standards well but omits how results are presented (e.g., pass/fail, violation margins), leaving some uncertainty for the agent in a complex simulation context.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds overall context but no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides. It does not clarify units or usage for any individual parameter beyond schema definitions.

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 predicts conducted emissions from an SMPS using a LISN model and checks compliance with CISPR 25 and FCC Part 15. This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from siblings like pcb_analyze_smps_emi or pcb_predict_emissions.

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?

Provides clear context: intended for SMPS conducted emissions analysis with a specific frequency range and standards. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when to prefer this over related tools such as pcb_analyze_smps_emi or pcb_get_cispr25_limit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.