emc_check_decoupling_placement

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

Annotations are empty, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It implies a review/check but never explicitly states that it is read-only, what threshold defines 'nearby,' or what the output represents beyond the existence of checks.

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 a single, focused sentence with no filler or redundant wording. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple check tool.

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 covers the core purpose and an output schema exists to define return values. However, it omits the configurable distance threshold and any context about scope (all ICs vs. selected) or its relationship to sibling EMC and signal-integrity checks, making it minimally adequate.

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 0% and the description never mentions max_distance_mm or explains how 'nearby' is quantified. The parameter's meaning is left entirely to the schema title and default value, contrasting with the rule that low-coverage descriptions must compensate.

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 ('Review') and clearly identifies the resource ('whether ICs have nearby decoupling capacitors'). It effectively distinguishes this check from sibling tools like pcb_place_decoupling_caps (placement) and pdn_recommend_decoupling_caps (recommendation).

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 about when to use this tool versus the many related EMC or decoupling tools. The description does not mention prerequisites, alternatives, or how this check fits into a broader compliance workflow.

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