pcb_predict_compliance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates that something will be predicted from parameters and does not disclose what the output looks like (e.g., pass/fail, margin, dB), what standards are applied, or any limitations/assumptions of the prediction model.

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 with no filler words or redundant restatements of the name. It is maximally concise, though the brevity trades away completeness captured in other dimensions.

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?

This tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and sits among dozens of similar EMC/analysis siblings. A one-sentence description with no return-value information, no example, and no mention of supported standards is inadequate for an agent to invoke it correctly and interpret the result.

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 only 20% (only 'standard' has an inline description), and the tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning. It merely says 'given design parameters' without elaborating on required inputs, units, or valid values, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 'Predict EMC compliance' with a specific verb and resource, but it does not distinguish this from sibling tools such as pcb_predict_emissions or pcb_analyze_emi_risk, and omits mention of the 'standard' parameter that narrows the prediction context.

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 phrase 'for given design parameters' implies the tool is used when design parameters are available for compliance prediction, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites like a specific market or standard.

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