pcb_analyze_immunity_margin

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 transparently outlines the calculation pipeline (induced voltage -> threshold comparison -> per-interface dB margins), giving the agent a clear expectation of the tool's non-mutating analysis behavior. It lacks explicit statements about side effects, but the phrasing makes it evident this is a read-only calculation 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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the purpose ('Immunity margin analysis with coupling path model') and then efficiently describes the technical flow in a compact manner. Every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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 is moderately complex (3 parameters, no output schema), yet the description covers the essential action and return concept ('returns per-interface margins in dB'). Input details are handled by the comprehensive schema. It could be improved by noting the structure of the return object, but this is not a critical omission given the explicit mention of dB margins per interface.

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 conceptual context (e.g., coupling path model, IC upset/damage thresholds) that complements the schema, but it does not significantly elaborate on parameter syntax or formatting beyond what the schema already documents. For example, it does not mention how 'iso_level' interacts with 'field_strength_vm', even though the schema has that detail.

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 clearly states the tool's function with specific verbs and resources: 'Calculates induced voltage at IC pins from electric-field coupling and BCI', 'compares to IC upset/damage thresholds', and 'returns per-interface margins in dB'. It distinguishes itself from sibling analysis tools by focusing on immunity margin and BCI, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 provides clear context by opening with 'Immunity margin analysis with coupling path model', which implies when to use the tool (for immunity margin calculations). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions relative to sibling tools like pcb_analyze_common_mode or pcb_analyze_cable_coupling, so it stops short of a direct comparison.

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