pcb_calc_ibis_eye

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It references 'V-T curves, I-V curves' and 'S-parameter loss,' but the schema only accepts simplified IBIS parameters (voh/vol/rise/fall) and a scalar channel_loss_db. This mismatch misleads about the actual inputs. It also omits return format and assumptions.

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?

Two concise, front-loaded sentences. The first states the core function and method; the second adds the comparative advantage. No waste.

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 complex simulation tool with no output schema, yet the description says nothing about what the eye diagram output looks like. Missing details include prerequisites, behavior when optional parameters are omitted, and the relationship between channel_loss_db and trace_length_mm. The description is too sparse for the tool's complexity.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. However, the description mentions 'S-parameter loss' and 'V-T/I-V curves' that do not map cleanly onto the schema's fields (channel_loss_db, simple IBIS parameter object), creating confusion. It adds no practical guidance for populating the nested ibis_model or optional parameters.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Generate'), names the resource ('IBIS-driven eye diagram'), and describes the method ('from parsed IBIS model data convolved with channel S-parameter loss'). It also distinguishes itself from analytical eye diagrams, differentiating it from sibling tool pcb_calc_eye_diagram.

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?

States 'More accurate than purely analytical eye diagrams,' which gives clear context for when to prefer this tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or enumerate exclusions, so it misses the full when/when-not guidance.

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