pcb_optimize_stackup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states that the tool 'generates alternative proposals' which indicates a non-destructive analysis/generation, but it does not explicitly state whether it modifies anything, what the response format looks like, or any constraints. The mention of 'impedance/loss/resonance comparisons and cost scoring' adds some insight into the internal processing.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action ('Analyze current stackup and generate alternative proposals') and includes all key aspects of the tool's purpose. No filler or redundant information.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must provide enough context for the agent. It fails to explain the structure of the returned proposals, how many are generated, how cost scoring works, or the role of the optional design_requirements parameter. This is a complex tool with nested object parameters, so a more detailed description is needed.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'current stackup' which corresponds to the first parameter, but it does not mention 'design_requirements' or the cost scoring inputs beyond the phrase 'cost scoring'. Thus it adds only marginal value over the schema.

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: 'Analyze current stackup and generate alternative proposals' with a specific resource (stackup) and scope (impedance/loss/resonance comparisons and cost scoring). This differentiates it from sibling tools like pcb_get_stackup (retrieval) and pcb_calc_microstrip_impedance (calculation of a single parameter).

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 stackup optimization but provides no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance. It does not mention alternatives such as the individual impedance calculation tools, so the agent must infer the appropriate context from the wording alone.

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