pcb_analyze_power_topology

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

With no annotations, the description carries some behavioral burden. It explains that the tool 'walks' power nets and reports specific findings, but does not explicitly state that it is read-only, how it handles ambiguous cases, or what 'report' implies (e.g., format or side effects). The prerequisite is useful 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?

Two sentences, no filler. The first sentence packs the core purpose and three specific findings; the second states the essential prerequisite. Front-loaded and concise.

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's complexity is moderate and the description covers its main behavior and dependency. Without an output schema, it does not describe the return format, but the listed findings give a clear sense of expected output. Minor gap: no mention of session requirements beyond parsing schematic.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no extra meaning to the parameters; it implies relevance of min_decaps_per_rail to missing caps but does not explicitly explain how it is used. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('walk') and resource ('schematic's power nets'), and enumerates concrete outputs (missing bulk/bypass caps, ungrounded rails, rails without regulator). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like pcb_analyze_pdn or pcb_analyze_vrm.

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 gives a prerequisite (requires schematic data via pcb_parse_schematic) but does not indicate when to choose this tool over alternatives like pcb_analyze_decoupling or pcb_analyze_pdn. No when/when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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