pcb_get_material_properties

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It only states what data is returned without specifying whether this is a read-only lookup, what output format to expect, or any limitations (e.g., only standard materials, no custom dielectric constants). This is a simple getter, but the lack of any additional context beyond the tool name leaves the agent guessing about side effects or constraints.

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, efficient sentence: 'Get dielectric properties for common PCB materials.' It is front-loaded with the action and resource, contains no redundant words, and every word adds meaning. This is appropriately concise for a 0-parameter tool.

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 that the tool has no output schema, the description should clarify what the returned data looks like. It mentions 'dielectric properties' but does not specify which properties (e.g., Dk, Df) or which 'common' materials are covered, nor the format (list, table). While a simple getter might not need extensive detail, the lack of an output schema makes this description only minimally complete for an agent deciding whether to invoke it.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema reflects that (coverage 100% vacuously). According to the rubric, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4. Since there are no parameters to explain, the description does not need to compensate for schema gaps. The score reflects the baseline.

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: 'Get dielectric properties for common PCB materials.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and a resource ('dielectric properties for common PCB materials'), which immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like pcb_calc_dielectric_loss (which computes loss, not properties) and pcb_get_stackup (which returns board stackup).

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios such as needing material constants before impedance calculations, nor does it exclude cases like custom vendor materials. There are no alternative tool names referenced or any contextual hints.

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