emc_check_via_stitching

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

Annotations are empty, so the description is the sole source of behavioral disclosure. It only states the estimation purpose and the input source (existing ground vias), but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what data it accesses, any side effects, or how the estimation is performed. This leaves significant ambiguity for a check tool.

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, clear sentence of eight words, with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded and easily parsed. However, its brevity borders on under-specification, though the sentence itself is well-formed and purposeful.

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 (reducing the need to describe return values), the description is incomplete for a tool with two parameters and no annotations. It lacks usage guidelines, parameter explanations, and behavioral context. Compared to sibling tools like emc_check_differential_pair_symmetry, this description is minimal and likely insufficient for an agent to select and use it correctly.

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 the parameters 'ground_net' or 'max_gap_mm' at all. The parameter names and defaults provide some intuitive meaning (e.g., ground net name and maximum gap in mm), but the description fails to explain their relationship to via-stitching density or how max_gap_mm is used.

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 clearly states the tool estimates via-stitching density using existing ground vias, with a specific verb ('estimate') and resource ('via-stitching density'). This distinguishes it from sibling EMC check tools like emc_check_ground_plane_voids or emc_check_return_path_continuity, which address different aspects.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools. The only implied usage is from the name/description itself, which is insufficient.

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