pcb_analyze_vrm

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only states a vague analysis activity. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, what outputs are produced, what criteria are checked, or any side effects. This is a severe gap.

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, efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the purpose. However, it is under-specified, but that is captured more in completeness than conciseness.

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?

This is a parameter-heavy analysis tool with no output schema and no annotations. The description provides no information about expected results, interpretation, or how the parameters influence the analysis. An agent cannot determine what to do with the tool's output.

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 only 20% (just input_voltage_v). The tool description does not explain how parameters like output_voltage_v, output_current_a, distance_to_load_mm, or switching_frequency_khz relate to the analysis. It adds no meaning beyond the parameter names themselves.

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 identifies the tool's focus: analyzing VRM placement and routing. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pcb_analyze_pdn or pcb_analyze_placement by naming the specific resource (VRM), though the verb 'analyze' is generic.

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. There are many power-related siblings (e.g., pcb_analyze_pdn, pcb_analyze_power_topology), and the description does not clarify the intended use case or mention any exclusions.

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