pcb_predict_emissions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently explains that the tool calculates emission levels per harmonic and compares to regulatory limits, which is a clear read-only computation. It does not mention prerequisites like a valid session, but that is covered in the schema.

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?

Two concise sentences with no fluff. The first sentence gives the purpose, and the second explains the calculation/comparison. Well-structured and easy to parse.

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 adequately covers the core functionality and the output (emission spectrum vs limits). It does not explain the return format or session dependency, but the schema documents all parameters. For a computation tool with 3 well-documented parameters, this is sufficient.

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 adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema already provides for 'standard', 'session_id', and 'test_distance_m'. It only loosely hints at the standard via 'FCC/CISPR'.

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 predicts radiated emission spectrum and compares each harmonic to FCC/CISPR limits. This is a specific verb+resource with enough detail to distinguish it from sibling tools like conducted emissions or EMI risk analysis.

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 use for radiated emission compliance checking but does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives like pcb_predict_compliance or pcb_analyze_conducted_emissions. No exclusions or alternative guidance is given.

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