pcb_analyze_current_loop

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'Estimate' with no details on assumptions (e.g., small-loop approximation), output format, limitations, or side effects. The agent gains only the minimal implication that this is a non-destructive calculation.

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 no wasted words. It front-loads the verb and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is too minimal to be complete. It lacks return value expectations, model assumptions, and usage context relative to other EMC tools, making it insufficient for an unfamiliar agent.

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. It does not mention or explain the three parameters (loop_area_mm2, current_ma, frequency_mhz). Though the parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no relationship or context beyond the schema.

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 specifies the action ('Estimate radiated emissions') and the object ('from a current loop') for EMC. This distinguishes it from broader EMC tools like pcb_predict_emissions by identifying the specific current-loop source model.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling EMC analysis tools. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent without context for selecting it over similar tools.

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