design_thermal_analysis

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully covers behavioral aspects: it uploads a BOM file, uses typical values for estimation, identifies components exceeding limits, and recommends vias/heatsinking. It does not mention mutability or side effects, but as an analysis tool, this is transparent enough. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise with three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: the first states the goal, the second details the process, and the third emphasizes an important note. No wasted words.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, details on return values are unnecessary. The description covers the main workflow: input, estimation, identification, recommendations. It could mention limitations (e.g., typical values) or prerequisites, but the context is largely complete for an analysis tool of this complexity.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by contextualizing the parameters: 'Uploads a BOM file' relates to bom_path, and the mention of typical values and thermal limits gives meaning to the ambient_temp_c parameter, even if not explicitly explained. This goes beyond the schema's raw property descriptions.

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 starts with a clear verb 'Estimate' and resource 'thermal dissipation from BOM', and specifies the outcome 'identify hot spots'. It is distinct from sibling tools like design_impedance_calculate or design_schematic_review, which focus on different aspects of design.

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 usage before layout by stating 'Review thermal risks and recommendations before layout.' It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but given the sibling list, no direct competitor exists. The context of needing a BOM file is clear.

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