pcb_optimize_ground_stitching

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the calculation method (lambda/20 rule) and that the tool accounts for existing vias and plane gaps. The word 'suggests' implies a non-destructive, advisory operation, but the description does not explicitly state side effects, return format, or permissions, leaving some ambiguity.

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 two concise sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and then provides the key method and constraints, making it highly scannable and information-dense.

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 lacks output details. Since there is no output schema, the agent cannot know whether the tool returns a list of via locations, a spacing value, or both. It does mention 'suggests via locations' as a hint, but not the structure or format. Given the tool's complexity, this is a notable gap, though input coverage is strong.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the algorithmic relationship: lambda/20 rule ties max_frequency_mhz and dielectric_constant to spacing, and 'accounting for existing vias and plane gaps' clarifies the role of existing_vias and plane_gaps. This goes beyond the schema's field-level descriptions.

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 a specific verb ('optimize') and resource ('ground via stitching pattern for a reference plane'), and further defines the scope with the lambda/20 rule and awareness of existing vias and plane gaps. This distinguishes it from siblings like pcb_calc_via_stitching, which likely only calculates spacing, and pcb_analyze_ground_stitch, which likely analyzes an existing pattern.

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 optimizing ground via stitching, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like pcb_calc_via_stitching or pcb_analyze_ground_stitch. No exclusionary guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer selection from the tool name and context.

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