pcb_analyze_ddr

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Analyze' with no detail about what actions are performed, whether the tool is read-only, what inputs are used, what outputs are produced, or any side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 without redundancy or filler. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the lack of any additional structured information (e.g., parameter hints or context) makes it slightly under-sized for a tool with five parameters, but this is more a completeness issue than a conciseness issue.

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 the complexity of DDR interface analysis, five parameters, low schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is critically incomplete. It does not explain what the analysis returns, which parameters are required for meaningful use, or how to interpret the available inputs. An agent would have no idea what to expect from invoking this tool.

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?

The input schema has very low coverage (20%), with only data_rate_mtps having a description. The tool description adds no parameter information at all, so it fails to compensate for the schema gaps. Users are left without meanings for fields like trace_length_mm, trace_impedance_ohm, and clock_to_data_skew_ps, and no explanation of how the required enum values map to analysis behavior.

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 verb ('Analyze') and the resource ('DDR memory interface routing'), which is specific enough to indicate the tool's domain. However, it does not distinguish this tool from closely related siblings like pcb_validate_ddr_topology or pcb_analyze_ddr_timing_budget, so it falls short of a 5.

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 the many sibling tools related to DDR, PCIe, USB, or other interface analyses. The description does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage purely from the name.

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