pcb_estimate_bandwidth

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the tool performs an estimation based on rise time but does not explain what 'EMC concerns' entails, what output format to expect, or any assumptions/limitations of the estimation. This is a meaningful gap 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 a single sentence and immediately front-loads the purpose, which is efficient. However, the phrase 'EMC concerns' is vague and under-specified; this brevity borders on being too terse rather than genuinely concise, as it leaves out necessary 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?

Given the tool has no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what kind of result is produced (e.g., a numerical bandwidth estimate, a list of concerns, a risk level). It currently provides only the input and general intent, leaving the output and interpretation unclear, which is inadequate even for a simple one-parameter tool.

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 only lists rise_time_ps as a number with no description. The description adds that the tool uses 'rise time' as the basis, but since the parameter name already encodes the unit (ps), the added semantic value is minimal. It does not describe units, valid range, or typical values, so the description only partially compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 estimates signal bandwidth and EMC concerns using rise time as input. It uses a specific verb ('estimate') and resource ('signal bandwidth and EMC concerns'), which distinguishes it from many sibling tools that focus on specific interfaces or other analysis tasks.

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 phrase 'from rise time' implies the tool should be used when a rise time value is available and bandwidth/EMC estimation is needed. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over related siblings like pcb_analyze_clock_emi or pcb_analyze_smps_emi, nor any exclusions or alternatives mentioned.

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