pcb_analyze_signal_flow

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently lists the checks performed (fan-out, contention, debug header presence, supervisor IC) and uses action verbs like 'Trace' and 'Flags', making the tool's behavior predictable.

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, each carrying essential information: the first defines scope, the second enumerates checks. The description is front-loaded and every word contributes, with no filler or repetition.

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?

For a single-parameter analysis tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what it does and what conditions it flags. It doesn't explicitly describe the return format, but the 'flags' wording implies findings, which is sufficiently clear for this low-complexity tool.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for session_id, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Trace') and the resources it acts on (clock distribution, reset distribution, and JTAG/SWD accessibility). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pcb_analyze_clock_emi or pcb_detect_interfaces, which focus on different aspects.

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 by listing specific conditions it flags (fan-out >4, multi-driver contention, missing debug headers, missing supervisor IC). This gives clear context for its use, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion scenarios.

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