pcb_analyze_shielding

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'analyze' without specifying whether this is a calculation, simulation, or heuristic estimate, nor what inputs or assumptions are involved. There is no mention of return values, accuracy, or limitations. The sparse description leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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, direct sentence that uses active voice and front-loads the verb and object. There is no wasted text, and it is appropriately concise for a simple statement of purpose.

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 tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), a single sentence is insufficient. The description does not explain what the analysis returns, what physical or model assumptions are made, or how it relates to other shielding/EMC tools. It provides no context to help an agent understand the tool's role or interpret results.

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 50% (material and aperture_mm have descriptions; thickness_mm and frequency_mhz do not). The tool description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but parameter names are self-explanatory and the schema provides allowed material values and aperture definition. Baseline is 3 because the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description does not introduce confusion.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('analyze') and resource ('shielding effectiveness of an enclosure'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pcb_analyze_cavity_resonance or pcb_analyze_emi_risk, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is unambiguous and useful for selection.

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 similar analysis tools (e.g., cavity resonance, EMI risk). No prerequisites, edge cases, or contextual use cases are provided. The description is purely a statement of function, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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