pcb_analyze_esd

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose what the tool actually does beyond its name. It does not state whether it is a read-only analysis, what inputs it expects, whether it modifies any state, or what kind of output it returns.

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 under-specified sentence. While brief, it omits essential detail and reads as a tautological statement rather than a genuinely concise explanation.

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?

With no output schema or annotations, the description should explain what the analysis produces. It does not mention return values, recommendations, pass/fail criteria, or any other contextual information, leaving the tool's behavior largely mysterious.

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 schema covers all 4 parameters with individual descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about how the parameters relate to the analysis or how they should be used.

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 clear topic 'ESD protection' and an action 'Analyze', but it is vague about what the analysis entails. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like pcb_analyze_protection_circuits or pcb_analyze_emi_risk, which follow the same 'Analyze X' pattern.

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. It does not mention typical use cases, prerequisites, or scenarios where another analysis tool would be more appropriate.

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