pcb_analyze_trace_antenna

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Check if...' which implies an analysis/read operation, but does not disclose whether it returns a boolean, risk score, or requires specific conditions. No mention of side effects, units, or limitations.

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 one concise sentence, front-loaded with the action, and contains no extraneous text.

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 minimal and does not explain the analysis method, the meaning of the result, or any prerequisites, making it incomplete for selecting and invoking 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 description contains no parameter information, but the input schema parameter names are self-explanatory with units (trace_length_mm, frequency_mhz) and a common term (dielectric_constant). However, the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, and with 0% schema coverage, the agent must rely on the names.

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 ('Check') and resource ('a trace'), clearly stating the function is to evaluate potential unintentional antenna behavior. While it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools, the focus on 'trace' and 'antenna' differentiates it from other analysis tools like slot antenna or EMI risk.

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 such as pcb_analyze_emi_risk or pcb_analyze_common_mode. The description only states the action, leaving the agent to infer context.

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