pcb_calc_via_stitching

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the lambda/20 rule methodology, adding behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it lacks details about output format, units, assumptions, or limitations, which would be valuable for a calculation tool.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the action and includes a useful methodological detail, making it well-structured for quick understanding.

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 is adequate for a simple two-parameter calculation tool, covering what it does and the method used. However, with no output schema or annotations, it falls short of explaining what exactly is returned (e.g., density and spacing values), any assumptions, or edge cases, leaving some gaps for the agent.

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 50%, with max_frequency_mhz described but dielectric_constant not. The description reinforces the role of frequency but does not explain dielectric_constant or its relationship to the calculation. It adds some value via the lambda/20 rule but does not fully compensate for the missing parameter description.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Calculate'), resource ('via stitching density and spacing'), and context ('EMI containment at a given frequency'). It also mentions the lambda/20 rule, which distinguishes it from related sibling tools like pcb_optimize_ground_stitching.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools such as pcb_optimize_ground_stitching or pcb_analyze_ground_stitch, nor does it provide any exclusion criteria or context for when this calculation is preferred.

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