pcb_analyze_near_field

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

No annotations exist, so the description is the only source of behavioral detail. It states the tool computes field components and identifies dominant emitters, but doesn't describe return format, required prerequisites, or whether it accesses any board data. This is moderate transparency.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with purpose. Every clause carries meaning.

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?

Given no output schema, the description should explain what the user gets back. It says 'identifies dominant emitters' and 'transition' but doesn't specify the return structure. Also lacks usage guidance. For a tool with one complex array parameter, the description is serviceable but has gaps.

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 covers 100% of parameters, so baseline 3. The description adds only the notion of 'various distances' and magnetic/electric dipoles, which maps loosely to source types. It does not explain when to use loop area vs trace length or how source type affects the model.

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 computes H-field and E-field from PCB sources, identifies dominant emitters, and quantifies near-field/far-field transition. This distinguishes it from sister tools like pcb_analyze_current_loop and pcb_predict_emissions.

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 when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The context 'Near-field probe and current loop EMI modeling' implies use for near-field analysis, but the description doesn't contrast with far-field or other EMI analysis tools.

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