pcb_find_split_crossings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It adds useful domain context about the consequence of crossings, but it does not disclose operational behavior such as return format, whether it is read-only, or any prerequisites beyond session_id.

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 tightly written sentences. The first states the action and target; the second explains the engineering significance. No filler or redundancy.

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 explains the tool's purpose and why it matters, but with no output schema it leaves the exact return value (e.g., list of crossing signals, locations, severity) unspecified. Still adequate for a focused analysis tool with a single parameter.

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 the single parameter (session_id) is already well-described in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find') and a clear resource ('signals crossing ground plane splits/slots'), immediately distinguishing it from related analysis tools like pcb_analyze_return_paths or pcb_analyze_emi_risk.

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 rationale ('Each crossing forces return current to detour...') implies this is used when evaluating EMI risk from ground plane splits, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools or provide exclusions.

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