emc_check_split_plane_crossing

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It states the tool emits warnings, implying a non-mutating check, but it does not disclose whether any board state is modified, what the warning output contains, or any prerequisites. The verb 'warn' gives basic but not rich behavioral context.

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 concise, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately states the condition and action.

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?

For a simple one-parameter check tool with an output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It lacks explicit usage guidance and does not clarify whether it acts on the current board or uses a provided net list. The existence of the output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but more context could improve completeness.

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 must compensate. It indirectly references the single parameter ('routed signals' for 'signal_nets') but does not explicitly explain the parameter format or semantics. The parameter is self-evident due to its name and type, but the description adds minimal added value beyond the schema.

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 'Warn when routed signals share layers with split non-ground planes' uses a specific verb ('warn') and clearly identifies the resource and condition. It distinguishes itself from sibling EMC tools by focusing on split non-ground plane crossing, not via stitching, ground plane voids, or return path continuity.

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 the tool is a diagnostic EMC check, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus other EMC checks, nor does it provide exclusions or alternatives. The user must infer usage from the name and description.

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