pcb_analyze_length_matching

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'analyze' without stating assumptions, calculation methodology, side effects, or output format, leaving key behavioral aspects unknown.

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 wasted words, making it concise. However, it is under-specified, missing useful context that could be included without sacrificing brevity.

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 annotations or output schema, and the description is too terse to fully convey what the analysis produces or how to use the results. It lacks information about the return value, expected units, or interpretation of skew, which is critical for a length matching 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters having clear descriptions in the schema. The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 a specific verb ('Analyze') and resource ('trace length matching') for a group of signals. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pcb_analyze_timing or pcb_analyze_differential_pair, which have different focuses.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or preferred contexts. It does not reference sibling tools or indicate when length matching analysis is appropriate over other signal integrity analyses.

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