pcb_calc_stripline_impedance

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'calculate impedance,' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose any assumptions, underlying formula, units of the result, or potential limitations (e.g., symmetric vs. asymmetric stripline). This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate the tool's behavior fully.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently states the purpose and the key distinguishing detail (buried between ground planes). Every word earns its place.

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 4 required parameters with no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal to fully support an agent. It does not explain the meaning of key parameters, the expected return value, or any practical constraints. The tool is not sufficiently documented for reliable invocation in all cases.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters beyond what the parameter names (trace_width_mm, dielectric_height_mm, trace_thickness_mm, dielectric_constant) already convey. It does not clarify ambiguous aspects like whether dielectric_height_mm is the distance to one ground plane or the total height, which is critical for correct use.

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's function: 'Calculate stripline (buried trace between ground planes) impedance.' The verb 'calculate' with the resource 'stripline impedance' is specific, and the parenthetical clarifies the distinct geometry (buried between ground planes), which differentiates it from microstrip or other impedance calculators.

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?

Usage context is implied by the name and description: use this for stripline (buried) traces. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of sibling tools like pcb_calc_microstrip_impedance or pcb_calc_differential_impedance. No alternatives are named, so the guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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