pcb_analyze_grounding

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'analyze', which implies read-only, but provides no information about output format, side effects, required inputs, or limitations. This is a significant gap for an analysis tool.

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 short sentence, which is structurally concise. However, it is under-specified for a tool with four parameters and likely complex analysis, so the brevity does not adequately serve the agent.

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, no annotations, and a sparse input schema. The description provides no information about return values, analysis methodology, or use cases, making it inadequate for the agent to understand the tool's full behavior.

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 description coverage is only 25% (topology has a description, board_size_mm, has_mixed_signal, and max_frequency_mhz lack descriptions). The tool description does not mention any parameters or add any meaning beyond the bare schema, failing to compensate for the low 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 'Analyze grounding topology' clearly states the action and the target resource (grounding topology). However, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like pcb_analyze_return_paths or pcb_analyze_ground_stitch, so it lacks the specificity needed for full clarity.

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. The single sentence gives no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on selecting this tool.

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