pcb_validate_pcie_lanes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that it calculates per-lane propagation delay and max skew, which gives insight into its computational behavior. However, it does not specify the output format (e.g., pass/fail verdict), potential side effects, or validation criteria, leaving some behavioral 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 extremely concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a brief explanation of the calculation. Every word is meaningful with no redundancy.

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 has a nested object parameter and no output schema, yet the description doesn't clarify the return structure or what 'validate' means in terms of output. It provides a reasonable overview but leaves the agent uncertain about the result type (e.g., skew values vs. pass/fail), which is a moderate completeness gap.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema already thoroughly documents each parameter, including formats and defaults.

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 uses specific verb 'Validate' and resource 'PCIe lane-to-lane skew against generation-specific spec limits'. It clearly distinguishes from broader siblings like pcb_analyze_pcie and pcb_calc_pcie_link_budget by focusing on skew validation.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool (validating PCIe lane skew against spec limits). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is specific enough to imply usage without ambiguity.

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