pcb_analyze_return_current

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

The description discloses behavioral output: it 'shows how current spreads laterally' and 'what fraction is contained within N*h.' However, with no annotations, it does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, what the output format is, or what N represents. There is no annotation contradiction.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the action verb and immediate object. It contains no filler or redundant statements. The only minor flaw is the undefined 'N*h,' but the overall structure is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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 the 4 parameters and no output schema, the description gives a basic understanding of the tool's purpose and output, but it omits important context: units of current density, return format, meaning of N, and how parameters influence the analysis. This leaves the description incomplete for fully automated selection and invocation, though the schema covers parameter definitions.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema; it does not explain how trace_height_mm or analysis_width_mm affect the result, nor does it define N in relation to parameters.

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 a specific action: 'Calculate return current density profile on reference plane beneath a signal trace.' It further details what the tool computes (lateral spreading and fraction within N*h), distinguishing it from sibling tools like pcb_trace_return_path or pcb_analyze_return_paths, though it is similar to pcb_analyze_return_current_density.

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 when to use the tool (when return current distribution analysis is needed) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternatives to prefer. It does not mention any exclusions or distinctions from the many similar sibling tools, so usage guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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