emc_check_high_speed_routing_rules

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Review' suggests a read-only operation, but there is no disclosure of what the tool does with the net class, what results are produced, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

While the description is a single short sentence, it is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks critical information, so the brevity is a deficiency, not a strength.

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 a domain-specific and complex purpose, with an output schema noted but not described. The description does not explain what 'short-stub proxy' means, what the tool returns, or how it relates to sibling EMC checks, leaving the tool essentially unusable without external knowledge.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain net_class or max_stub_length_mm. The phrase 'short-stub proxy' might hint at the max_stub_length_mm parameter, but it is too cryptic to count as meaningful parameter semantics.

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' with a resource, but 'short-stub proxy' is ambiguous and fails to specify what the tool actually checks. It does not distinguish this tool from sibling EMC check tools, leaving the purpose vague.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many other emc_check_* tools, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description is entirely silent on usage context.

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