pcb_analyze_emi_risk

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the analytical approach: 'Combines return path quality, loop area, frequency content, and current to predict emissions.' This gives insight into the tool's behavior, but it does not explain output format, interpretation of scores, or any side effects. It is informative but not thorough.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and immediately followed by the methodology. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or filler content. It is concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover the expected result. It does state that it scores per net and identifies top concerns, but it omits details such as how to interpret scores, the effect of the 'standard' parameter, and how this compares to closely related tools. The description is functional but leaves gaps for a complex EMI analysis 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 already describes both parameters with 100% coverage: session_id is 'Session ID from pcb_parse_layout' and standard lists the acceptable EMC standards. The description does not add additional parameter-specific meaning, but it does not need to because the schema is sufficiently descriptive. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action: 'Score EMI risk per net and identify top concerns,' which clearly identifies the tool's purpose and resource. It goes beyond a simple 'analyze' verb by describing the output granularity, though it does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like pcb_predict_emissions or pcb_get_emi_hotspots.

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 usage for net-level EMI risk assessment ('Score EMI risk per net'), but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. It lacks a clear 'use this when' or 'for X, use Y instead' statement, so the usage context is only implicit.

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