pcb_calc_differential_impedance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention the calculation model, assumptions, units for output, limitations, or any side effects. The one-line description leaves the agent guessing about return format and boundary conditions.

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 concise sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. There is no filler or redundancy, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 tool with six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the result looks like, what units are used, or which formulas apply for microstrip vs stripline. Critical information for correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter documentation. It does not explain any of the six parameters, even though names are somewhat self-explanatory. The mention of 'differential pair' hints at spacing, but detailed parameter semantics are absent.

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 differential pair impedance, with a specific verb and resource. It gives examples (USB, HDMI, Ethernet) that convey the domain. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like microstrip or stripline impedance calculators, so it does not fully distinguish itself.

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 examples (USB, HDMI, Ethernet) imply use for high-speed differential signals, providing some context. Yet it offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions such as single-ended impedance. The usage is implied rather than clearly stated.

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