pcb_analyze_usb

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'Analyze USB routing' with no mention of what checks are performed, whether it is read-only, what output is returned, or any side effects/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 short and front-loaded, but at four words it is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks essential context an agent needs, so the brevity does not serve the tool's usability.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and three parameters, the description should explain what the analysis entails, what results are returned, and how inputs affect the outcome. None of this is provided, making the tool description inadequate for correct invocation and interpretation.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any parameters. While parameter names (usb_version, trace_length_mm, differential_impedance_ohm) are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema and fails to clarify how these parameters are used in 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 'Analyze USB routing' uses a specific verb ('analyze') and a specific resource ('USB routing'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that analyze other protocols like PCIe or Ethernet. It conveys exactly what the tool does at a high level.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare with sibling analysis tools, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and input schema.

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