pcb_analyze_tolerance

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, but it reveals nothing about side effects, output format, assumptions, or how the analysis is performed. The statement is purely declarative and adds no transparency beyond the obvious.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and immediately communicates the core purpose, which is exactly what conciseness requires.

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 tool with three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't specify what the analysis returns, how the method affects the calculation, or any necessary context for interpreting results. The agent would lack essential information to properly invoke and use the 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description doesn't explain the parameters. While param names like nominal_mm and tolerances_mm are somewhat self-explanatory, the meaning of the tolerance array and the method options (worst_case, rss, monte_carlo) is not elaborated, so the description adds minimal value beyond the 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 'Analyze manufacturing tolerance stackup' clearly states a specific action (analyze) and resource (manufacturing tolerance stackup), which aligns with the tool name and distinguishes it from many siblings that focus on other PCB aspects. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential alternative tools or mention the scope beyond the general purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It only states the function, leaving the agent to infer suitability from the tool name alone.

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