emc_check_differential_pair_symmetry

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

Annotations are empty, so the description carries the full burden. It says 'Review' which implies a read-only analysis, but it does not disclose what the check entails, what conditions trigger flags, or how results are reported. No side effects or limitations are mentioned. The description is too vague to understand the tool's behavior.

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 short sentence with no fluff. It is appropriately front-loaded and every word contributes meaning. However, it may be too terse for a tool with this complexity, but conciseness itself is good.

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 3 parameters and an output schema, but the description gives no context about when to use it, how results are returned, or what constitutes a violation. The output schema exists, so return format is covered, but the overall purpose and usage context are underdeveloped. A minimal viable description would at least mention the parameters or the checking context.

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%, requiring the description to compensate. The description does not explain the parameters net_p, net_n, or max_skew_ps. While the parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description does not clarify their roles or how they relate to 'width symmetry', and there is no mention of a width tolerance parameter.

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 identifies the resource as 'diff-pair skew and width symmetry'. This distinguishes it from the sibling si_check_differential_pair_skew, which focuses only on skew. However, 'review' is somewhat generic and could be more forceful like 'check' or 'analyze'.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling si_check_differential_pair_skew exists, but the description does not mention it or explain when to prefer this tool for combined skew/width checks. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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