pcb_analyze_smps_emi

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the analytical model and that it compares against emission limits, which is useful. However, it omits behavioral details like what output is produced, whether it requires a PCB layout context, or any limitations/assumptions of the model.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and outcome. Each sentence adds a distinct piece of information: scope, methodology, and comparison behavior. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 10 parameters and no output schema. The description covers the modeling approach and the comparison to limits, but it does not state what the returned result contains (e.g., harmonic spectrum, pass/fail margins, near-field values). Given the complexity and the absence of an output schema, this is a noticeable completeness gap, though the description is still substantive.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions and defaults, so the baseline is 3. The description adds conceptual context by tying parameters to the model: trapezoidal current harmonics relate to rise_time_ns, num_harmonics, and duty_cycle; hot loop radiation relates to pcb_loop_area_cm2; and limit comparison maps to limit_standard. This elevates understanding beyond the raw schema.

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 'Calculate' and clearly identifies the resource: 'SMPS switching harmonic EMI from hot loop radiation.' It further names the modeling approach (trapezoidal current waveform harmonics through a magnetic dipole antenna model) and the comparison to emission limits. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pcb_analyze_conducted_emissions or pcb_analyze_common_mode.

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 its use for SMPS radiated EMI estimation but provides no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance. It does not mention alternatives such as pcb_analyze_clock_emi or pcb_predict_emissions, which is a notable gap given the large sibling toolset.

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