pcb_analyze_mode_conversion

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It communicates a safe analysis behavior ('Analyze', 'estimate') and lists the computed quantities, but it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, describe return format, or disclose modeling assumptions/caveats. This is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence that moves from action and object to a colon-delimited list of specific outputs. It contains no filler words or redundant information. The structure makes the tool's purpose and scope easy to parse quickly.

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 and no annotations, the description should specify the return structure and interpretation, but only a vague list of outputs ('EMI impact') is provided. It also misses usage guidance and assumptions (e.g., default trace_type microstrip) that would help a selecting agent. Given the complexity of the calculation, one sentence is insufficient for full context.

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 input schema already documents all 7 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds a link between length_asymmetry_mm and SCD21/common-mode current, but does not add substantial semantics beyond the schema. No parameter is left unexplained.

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 analyzes differential pair mode conversion and enumerates specific outputs (even/odd impedances, SCD21, common-mode current, EMI impact). This distinguishes it from siblings such as pcb_analyze_differential_pair (general differential analysis) and pcb_analyze_common_mode (common mode analysis).

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 implies the tool is for mode conversion analysis in differential pairs, specifically mentioning length asymmetry as an input driver. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools like pcb_analyze_common_mode or pcb_calc_differential_impedance, nor does it give exclusions. This is implied usage rather than explicit guidance.

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