pcb_analyze_return_paths

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the analysis type and what it identifies/calculates, but does not mention whether it is read-only, what the return format is, or whether it requires a specific session state. Adequate but lacks deeper 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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and lists specific outputs. Every clause adds value, with no redundant or filler content.

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 description covers the core purpose and key outputs, but without an output schema or annotations, it does not explain the return format, limitations, or relationship to other analysis tools. It is adequate for basic selection but not fully complete for complex use.

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%, with both session_id and max_frequency_mhz documented. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding of how or when to use the 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 uses a specific verb ('Analyze') with a clear resource ('return paths') and an explicit scope ('all high-speed signal nets'). It further distinguishes itself by listing three concrete outputs (split-plane crossings, inadequate return vias, loop areas), differentiating it from sibling tools like pcb_find_split_crossings or pcb_trace_return_path.

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 phrase 'for all high-speed signal nets' implies when to use the tool, but there is no explicit guidance about alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or comparisons are provided, so usage context is only implicit.

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