pcb_calc_plane_resonance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says it calculates frequencies and identifies noise-amplifying modes, but does not explain return format, units, underlying assumptions (e.g., ideal cavity model, mode numbers), or any limitations. This is insufficient for a tool with no 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 compact and front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence adds value by explaining the practical relevance (EMI). It is appropriately sized, though it could trade a few words for parameter context.

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 calculation tool with 4 required parameters and no output schema or annotations. The description gives the purpose but omits expected outputs, assumptions, units, and guidance for comparison with sibling analysis tools. It is not complete enough for an agent to confidently invoke and interpret results.

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 only 25% (only dielectric_height_mm has a description). The description adds no parameter details, leaving the meaning of plane_width_mm, plane_length_mm, and dielectric_constant mostly to name inference. With low coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 power/ground plane cavity resonance frequencies, a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not differentiate from the very similar sibling tool pcb_analyze_cavity_resonance, leaving ambiguity about which to use.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It neither mentions typical scenarios (e.g., power integrity analysis) nor excludes other tools. Without this, agents cannot decide between this and pcb_analyze_cavity_resonance, pcb_analyze_pdn, or pcb_calc_pdn_impedance.

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