pcb_analyze_pcie

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

With no annotations, the description carries a heavy burden, but it only says 'Analyze PCIe lane routing,' which implies a read-only analysis without stating any behavioral specifics such as what is returned, whether any board data is required, or what checks are performed. It adds little beyond the tool name.

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 short (5 words) but under-specified rather than appropriately concise. The single sentence does not earn its place because it adds minimal value over the tool name and does not cover essential details for a tool with five parameters.

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?

There is no output schema, no annotations, and a complex domain with five parameters and many PCIe-related siblings. The description does not explain what the analysis produces, what inputs mean, or how it differs from validation tools. It is completely inadequate for reliable agent selection and invocation.

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 0%, meaning the description adds no information about the five parameters. It does not mention pcie_gen, lane_count, trace_length_mm, insertion_loss_db, or differential_impedance_ohm, nor does it explain their role in the analysis. The schema alone is only somewhat self-documenting, so the description must compensate but fails to.

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 uses the specific verb 'Analyze' and names the resource 'PCIe lane routing', but 'analyze' is generic and does not specify what aspects of lane routing are examined (e.g., impedance, length matching, crosstalk). It does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like pcb_validate_pcie_lanes or pcb_calc_pcie_link_budget, so the purpose remains vague.

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. It gives no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, so an agent cannot determine if this is the right tool for a given PCIe analysis task.

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