pcb_analyze_decoupling_per_ic

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It accurately describes the analysis logic and the guideline, but does not explicitly state that it is read-only or describe the output format. Since the tool is an analysis/flagging operation, the risk of unexpected side effects is low, but the description could be more explicit.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, scope, and criterion. No filler words.

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 simple analysis tool with two parameters, the description covers the core behavior well. However, without an output schema, it does not specify the return format or whether it returns a list of flagged ICs, capacitor counts, etc. This is a moderate gap, but the overall behavior is understandable.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context by referencing the 1-cap-per-Vdd-pin guideline, which aligns with the default of min_caps_per_vdd_pin, but does not introduce new parameter semantics.

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's function: iterating over ICs, counting capacitors on Vdd-class nets, and flagging under-decoupled ICs. It specifies the resource (ICs, Vdd nets) and the action (count, flag), distinguishing it from broader decoupling analysis tools.

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 conveys the intended use case: per-IC decoupling assessment relative to a cap-per-Vdd-pin guideline. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it, but the context is clear from the per-IC scope.

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