pcb_visualize_return_path

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral transparency. It discloses that the tool computes skin-depth-based current density and considers phenomena like transition current spreading and slot crossing impedance, giving insight into its model. However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only, what input context (e.g., board data) is required, or what the visualization output looks like.

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 sentences with the main purpose first. The second sentence packs multiple technical terms but remains concise and free of filler. It earns a high score for front-loading and efficiency.

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 single but complex parameter and no output schema or annotations. The description explains what is calculated but fails to describe the visualization output, how to interpret results, or how it differs from similar analysis tools. This leaves gaps for an agent selecting or invoking the tool.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage for the single 'discontinuities' parameter and its nested properties, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about the analysis phenomena (plane splits, slot crossing impedance), which can help agents understand which properties matter, but it does not directly explain parameter syntax or constraints beyond 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 uses a specific verb 'Visualize' and names the resource 'return current path discontinuities.' It also lists computed quantities like skin-depth-based current density, clearly distinguishing it from analysis-only siblings such as pcb_analyze_return_current_density.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pcb_analyze_return_paths or pcb_analyze_return_current_density. It implies usage through the verb 'visualize' but does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred scenarios.

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