pcb_calc_return_loss

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Calculate' implies a pure computation with no side effects, but it does not explicitly state that no design changes are made, nor describe the output format or any assumptions (e.g., frequency independence of mismatch).

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the tool's purpose and key outputs without waste. Every word is informative and the structure is immediately scannable.

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 simple calculation tool, the description names all outputs and the schema covers all inputs, so the core context is complete. However, the inclusion of 'frequency_mhz' is not explained in the description—it is not obvious why frequency matters for a purely impedance-mismatch calculation.

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 provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds no further parameter-level detail, so it stays at the baseline without compensating for any schema gaps.

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 identifies the exact resources and outputs (return loss, S11, mismatch loss, VSWR) derived from impedance mismatch. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling calc tools like pcb_calc_insertion_loss or pcb_calc_microstrip_impedance.

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?

It states the use case ('from impedance mismatch'), implying when to use it, but provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives among many related signal-integrity calculation tools. Clear context but no exclusions.

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