pcb_calc_dielectric_loss

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden but only adds that loss tangent is accounted for and the output units. It does not describe the return structure, assumptions, or limitations. This is adequate for a simple calculator but minimal.

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 purpose and units, with no redundant information. Every word earns its place.

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 simple calculator with no output schema or annotations, the description gives the core calculation and output units but lacks parameter semantics and return format. It is sufficient for a basic understanding but leaves gaps for a fully autonomous agent.

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 low (25%: only loss_tangent has a description). The description mentions loss_tangent but does not explain the roles or units of frequency_mhz, dielectric_constant, or trace_length_mm, forcing reliance on property 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 clearly states the tool calculates dielectric loss, specifying output units (dB/inch, total dB) and the context (trace at frequency). It distinguishes from sibling loss calculators (e.g., skin effect, insertion loss) by explicitly naming the loss mechanism and loss tangent.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pcb_calc_skin_effect or pcb_calc_insertion_loss. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and context.

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