pcb_analyze_timing

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'analyze timing margins' without explaining what inputs do, what the output is, whether it's a calculation or simulation, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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 concise and front-loaded, but it is under-specified. While it is a complete sentence and avoids verbosity, its brevity hurts utility for such a complex tool with 6 required parameters.

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 complexity (6 required params, no annotations, no output schema) and numerous closely related siblings, the description is severely incomplete. It provides no return value expectations, no parameter relationships, and no usage scenario, making it inadequate for correct selection and invocation.

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%, and the description adds no meaning to any of the 6 parameters. It does not mention trace length, data rate, setup/hold times, or how they relate to timing margins, so the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.

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 analyzes timing margins for high-speed signals, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like pcb_analyze_ddr_timing_budget or pcb_analyze_length_matching, which also relate to timing analysis.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description gives no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess which timing analysis tool is appropriate.

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