pcb_calc_insertion_loss

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It details the physics models (skin effect, Hammerstad roughness, dielectric loss, mismatch loss), but does not specify assumptions (e.g., microstrip vs. stripline) or the return format, which is important given the lack of an output schema.

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, starting with the primary purpose and followed by a concise list of loss mechanisms. Every word is useful, and no irrelevant information is included.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description gives a high-level overview but leaves gaps about geometry assumptions and output details. It mentions frequency-swept calculation and loss models, but does not specify whether it applies to microstrip or stripline traces, nor what the result structure looks like.

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?

The input schema already describes each of the 10 parameters with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description does not elaborate on parameter usage beyond mentioning loss models, which aligns with the baseline of 3.

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 frequency-swept insertion loss (S21) and return loss (S11) for a PCB trace, which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like pcb_calc_return_loss that likely focus on S11 only. The mention of specific loss models (conductor, dielectric, mismatch) further clarifies its scope.

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 provides clear context by stating it computes both S21 and S11 over a frequency sweep and models conductor, dielectric, and mismatch losses. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when to use this tool over pcb_calc_return_loss or pcb_calc_dielectric_loss, though the combined functionality is implied.

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