pcb_analyze_pdn

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 does not explain what the analysis entails, whether it is a calculation, simulation, or review, what inputs are required, what outputs are produced, or any side effects. The one-line description is essentially a restatement of the tool name with no added behavioral context.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. However, its extreme brevity means it omits necessary context, so while it is structurally concise, it is not fully effective.

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 output schema, no annotations, and four parameters, yet the description provides only a generic statement. It does not explain the analysis scope, the meaning of the parameters, the expected return value, or how it differs from the many similar PDN-related sibling tools. This is severely incomplete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 description does not mention any parameters or add meaning beyond the schema. The schema already provides descriptions for 'ripple_percent' and 'target_impedance_mohm', but the two required parameters ('supply_voltage_v' and 'max_current_a') lack descriptions. Since the schema coverage is only 50%, the description should compensate but instead is silent about parameter semantics.

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 action (analyze) and resource (power distribution network impedance), making the core purpose evident. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling tool 'pcb_calc_pdn_impedance' which appears to perform a nearly identical function, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pcb_calc_pdn_impedance, pcb_analyze_decoupling, or pcb_analyze_vrm. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for appropriate selection.

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