pcb_calc_cpw_impedance

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 adds useful context by mentioning the conformal-mapping method and the grounded/ungrounded option, which goes beyond the schema. But it omits behavioral details like output units, validity limits of conformal mapping, or any accuracy caveats.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource, and every word adds value without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 and no annotations, the description should explain return values and any constraints. It does not state that the tool returns impedance in ohms, nor does it mention assumptions or limitations of the conformal mapping method. For a 6-parameter calculation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 high (83%) and most parameters already have clear descriptions. The description adds no new parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Calculate') and resource ('coplanar waveguide (CPW/GCPW) impedance'), clearly identifying its function. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming the exact transmission line type and noting support for both grounded and ungrounded variants.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'coplanar waveguide' and the grounded/ungrounded distinction, which helps differentiate from microstrip/stripline calculators. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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