pcb_calc_skin_effect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the use of Hammerstad surface roughness correction, which is a specific behavioral detail. However, it does not state units of the outputs, any default assumptions (e.g., copper temperature), or how the calculation handles unspecified optional parameters (though the schema provides default hints).

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 a single sentence of 16 words, immediately stating the core action and outputs. It is front-loaded with 'Calculate' and every word is relevant, containing 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 lists all three outputs (skin depth, AC resistance factor, conductor loss) and specifies the roughness correction model, which is sufficient for a calculator with no output schema. It does not explain output units or express typical use cases, but given the parameter schema already documents defaults, the description is nearly complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 schema covers 67% of parameters (copper_thickness_oz and surface_roughness_um have descriptions, frequency_mhz does not). The description does not add parameter-level detail, but the missing frequency_mhz parameter is self-explanatory from its name. Overall, the description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema.

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 starts with the strong verb 'Calculate' and names three specific output quantities: skin depth, AC resistance factor, and conductor loss. It also distinguishes itself from sibling calculators (e.g., pcb_calc_dielectric_loss, pcb_calc_trace_width) by explicitly mentioning the Hammerstad surface roughness correction, making its scope unique.

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 intended use is implied by the description: if you need skin depth or AC loss values, you would invoke this tool. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over similar calculators (e.g., pcb_calc_insertion_loss, pcb_calc_dielectric_loss), nor any exclusion criteria or mention of alternatives.

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