pcb_analyze_thermal_via

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden but only states the purpose. It doesn't reveal what 'analysis' produces, whether the operation is read-only, what the return value looks like, or any assumptions—a major gap for a tool with no output schema.

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 one-sentence description is front-loaded and contains no fluff. However, the brevity reflects under-specification rather than purposeful conciseness for a 5-parameter tool with no other documentation.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a large sibling set, the description is incomplete. It doesn't clarify return values, usage context, or how it differs from similar analysis tools, leaving the agent without enough information to invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it adds no parameter-level meaning. While names like via_count and via_diameter_mm are self-explanatory, copper_fill_percent and board_thickness_mm lack context, and the description doesn't explain how parameters influence the analysis.

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 identifies a specific resource (thermal via array) and the goal (heat dissipation), clearly stating what the tool does. However, the verb 'analyze' is generic, and it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like pcb_analyze_thermal or pcb_calc_via_stitching.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus pcb_calc_via_stitching, pcb_analyze_via, or pcb_analyze_thermal. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context clues beyond the tool name.

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