extract_power_domains

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral context. It only states the action without mentioning side effects (e.g., read-only nature), output format, or limitations. The input schema partially covers path format, but behavioral aspects are missing.

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 (one sentence) and front-loaded, but it sacrifices informativeness. While efficient, it could include more detail without becoming verbose, e.g., mentioning output or related tools.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is minimally viable. However, it lacks contextual completeness regarding usage in the broader tool ecosystem, especially given many sibling tools with similar names and purposes.

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% (schematic_path has a clear description). Baseline is 3, and the description does not add extra meaning or examples for the parameter, maintaining the baseline.

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?

Description states verb 'extract' and specific resource 'power domain and regulator configurations', making the tool's purpose clear. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling extraction tools like extract_gpio_config or extract_i2c_devices, preventing a higher score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as analyze_pcb_power_integrity or other extract_* tools. The description lacks any context on prerequisites or decision criteria.

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