emc_check_ground_plane_voids

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

Annotations are empty, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'review' and 'simple proxy,' without explaining actual analysis steps, thresholds, required layers, or limitations. There is no contradiction with annotations, but the disclosure is minimal.

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 sentence with no fluff and the action verb is front-loaded. It is appropriately short, though it is so terse that some important context is omitted.

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?

Although an output schema exists and return values need not be explained, the description lacks selection context, parameter meaning, and a clear definition of the 'void-risk proxy.' It functions as a label rather than a complete guide for an agent deciding whether or how to invoke 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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention max_void_area_mm2. The parameter name and default hint at a threshold, but the description adds no meaning and fails to explain how this value influences the check.

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 the verb 'Review' and names the resource 'GND plane presence' plus a 'void-risk proxy,' which clearly indicates the tool's focus among EMC sibling checks. However, the phrase 'simple void-risk proxy' is vague and does not specify the exact criteria being evaluated.

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 when-to-use guidance or alternative tools are mentioned. Sibling checks like emc_check_return_path_continuity and emc_check_split_plane_crossing are related, but the description does not differentiate this tool from them.

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