pcb_analyze_crosstalk

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits such as analysis method, return format, or side effects. It only states the topic without explaining how the analysis is performed, what output is produced, or any assumptions, leaving significant ambiguity for the agent.

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 concise sentence with a clear verb-first structure and no extraneous words. However, it sacrifices valuable detail for brevity, so it is not at the highest level.

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?

With five required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a minimal sentence like this leaves the agent without enough context to infer input requirements or expected results. The description should at least hint at what the analysis returns or what physical model is used.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter meanings. It does not mention any of the five parameters or their roles in the analysis, though the parameter names themselves are somewhat self-explanatory.

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 identifies the tool's purpose with a specific verb ("Analyze") and resource ("crosstalk between parallel traces"), and further specifies the crosstalk types (NEXT and FEXT), which distinguishes it from other analysis tools in the sibling list (e.g., cable coupling or common mode).

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 description implies the use case (analyzing crosstalk between parallel traces) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. Sibling tools like pcb_analyze_cable_coupling exist but are not referenced.

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