pcb_analyze_differential_pair

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Analyze' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not state what calculations are performed, what inputs influence the analysis, whether anything is modified, or what the return value looks like. This is minimal disclosure.

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, but it is under-specified. It omits essential details and therefore does not earn its place; it is more a placeholder than a useful description.

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?

This tool has 7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and is one of many similar analysis tools. The description remains a vague one-liner, giving no indication of what is computed, what constitutes 'quality,' or what the expected output is. It is completely inadequate for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 only 29%, and the tool description does not mention any parameters. Parameter names like 'trace_width_mm' are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning about how they relate to 'routing quality' or how the analysis uses them. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 uses 'Analyze' as a verb and identifies the resource as 'differential pair routing quality,' which is a specific topic. However, 'routing quality' is vague and does not specify what aspects are analyzed (e.g., impedance, skew, spacing), and it does not clearly distinguish from sibling tools like pcb_calc_differential_impedance or pcb_analyze_mode_conversion.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, despite the large number of similarly named analysis tools in the sibling list.

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