pcb_analyze_protection_circuits

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It describes the analytical actions and implies a read-only operation (via 'analyze'), but it does not disclose side effects, output format, or any prerequisites beyond session_id. The behavior is partially transparent but lacks depth.

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 sentence that is efficient and front-loaded with the primary action. It includes a parenthetical list of examples, which is useful but makes the sentence slightly dense. No filler words; overall well-structured.

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 is simple with one parameter, but the description omits what the output looks like (e.g., a findings list, report, or pass/fail). It also lacks differentiation from overlapping sibling tools, leaving the agent to guess the result format and how it integrates with the review workflow.

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%: the sole parameter `session_id` is sufficiently described as 'Session id with schematic data.' The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics, so 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 'Identify' and 'check' with a concrete resource: external-facing nets and specific protection components. It clearly distinguishes from siblings by focusing on protection circuit analysis across multiple interface types, with examples like USB, Ethernet, antenna ports, and power inputs.

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 usage by defining the scope of analysis, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus specialized siblings like pcb_analyze_esd, pcb_analyze_common_mode, or pcb_analyze_usb. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer appropriateness from the examples.

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