pcb_extract_simulation_candidates

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool modifies anything, requires a valid existing session, or how errors are handled. It only lists output fields without clarifying units, edge cases, or that the impedance is analytical (not simulated).

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and no wasted words. It efficiently communicates what the tool does and what it returns.

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 tool has no output schema or annotations, and the description provides only a high-level summary of the return value. It lacks specifics on how candidates are prioritized, what 'geometry' includes, or required session state, leaving gaps for an agent to invoke it without full clarity.

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 coverage is 100%, and both parameters (session_id, max_candidates) have descriptions. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond the schema, such as expected format or constraints for max_candidates, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Extract' and the resource 'RF/high-speed structures from a parsed design', with the explicit outcome of being 'suitable for full-wave EM simulation'. This distinguishes it from sibling analysis tools and simulation execution tools.

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 a parsed design' implies the prerequisite of a prior pcb_parse_layout call via session_id. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like pcb_generate_em_simulation or pcb_analyze_* tools, nor does it provide exclusion criteria.

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