pcb_calc_pcie_link_budget

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must reveal behavior. It does disclose the calculation method (summing trace, connector, via, and package losses and comparing against the PCIe spec), but it omits details about the output format, assumptions for loss models, and any limitations. The equalizer margin is mentioned but not defined.

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 and 22 words, with the main purpose front-loaded and every sentence contributing useful information. There is no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description provides a good high-level summary of the tool's function and algorithm, but it does not describe the return values or structure (which is especially important since there is no output schema), nor does it mention assumptions about loss modeling or defaults for optional parameters like dielectric_constant or loss_tangent. Given the tool's 8 parameters and no output schema, a bit more detail is needed.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explicitly mapping the sum of trace, connector, via, and package losses to the respective input parameters, and it clarifies that the comparison uses the PCIe generation spec. However, it does not explain the role of material properties like loss_tangent or dielectric_constant.

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 a clear resource ('PCIe link insertion loss budget and equalizer margin'), and it explains the core algorithm (summing losses and comparing to spec), distinguishing it from generic insertion-loss tools and broader PCIe analysis tools.

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 for PCIe link budget analysis, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over similar ones like pcb_calc_insertion_loss or pcb_analyze_pcie, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives.

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