pcb_get_stackup_templates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool retrieves templates, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly mention side effects, limitations, or return format. The description is accurate but minimal, without disclosing behavioral traits beyond the get action.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without redundant words or extraneous details. Every word earns its place.

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 is simple (zero params, no output schema), yet the description is brief. It tells the user they will get templates with impedances, but it doesn't specify what 'common' includes (e.g., layer counts, standards) or the structure of the returned data. Since there is no output schema, the description could provide more detail, but it is adequate for a basic template-list 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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100% (an empty object). With no parameters to document, the baseline is 4. The description adds meaningful context about the output (templates with typical impedances), which helps the agent understand what to expect even though parameter semantics are not applicable.

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: getting common PCB stackup templates with typical impedances. The verb 'get' and resource 'stackup templates' are specific, and the mention of 'common' and 'typical impedances' distinguishes it from sibling tools like pcb_get_stackup (which likely retrieves the current design's stackup) and pcb_optimize_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 implies usage for retrieving standard templates but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as pcb_get_stackup. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, only contextual hints from the tool name and description.

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