pcb_analyze_slot_antenna

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. However, it only states the action without disclosing the analysis method, return values, assumptions, or limitations. There is no behavioral detail beyond the basic purpose.

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 front-loaded and contains no filler. Every word earns its place, making it appropriately concise for such a focused tool.

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 has three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is too minimal to be complete; it doesn't explain what the analysis returns, what the inputs mean physically, or what assumptions are made. An agent would lack essential information to use the tool correctly.

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 schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), and the tool description does not mention any parameters or how they are used. The parameter names (slot_length_mm, frequency_mhz, slot_width_mm) are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic context beyond the schema, so it fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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') and resource ('slot in ground plane') with a clear qualifier ('as unintentional antenna'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like pcb_analyze_trace_antenna. It precisely states what the tool does.

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 a clear use case: analyzing slots in ground planes as unintentional antennas. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives, so it lacks the explicit when/when-not guidance of a 5.

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