pcb_analyze_ground_stitch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, what 'return current containment constraints' actually means, or any edge cases or side effects. This is insufficient for a calculation tool that operates on PCB designs.

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 sentence with no filler, which is concise. However, the awkward phrasing 'optimal ground via stitching spacing' could be clearer, and a small structural revision would improve readability without adding length.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values and units, but it only vaguely mentions 'return current containment constraints.' The tool has 5 input parameters and sits among many similar analysis tools, yet the description does not give enough context for an agent to anticipate the result or distinguish it from related tools.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context by linking 'lambda/N' to lambda_fraction and 'containment' to target_containment_percent, but it does not clarify the remaining parameters. It adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb (Calculate) and names the resource (ground via stitching spacing) and method (wavelength lambda/N). However, the phrasing 'optimal ground via stitching spacing' is grammatically awkward and does not explicitly distinguish this tool from similar siblings like pcb_calc_via_stitching or pcb_optimize_ground_stitching.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage via the wavelength formula but does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer when this is the right choice.

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