pdn_check_copper_weight

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

With empty annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Check whether' strongly implies a read-only analysis, but it does not explicitly state that no modifications occur, nor does it describe the basis for 'sufficient' (e.g., IPC standards) or return behavior. It adds some transparency about purpose but lacks depth.

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, front-loaded sentence with no superfluous words. It efficiently states the tool's purpose and immediately communicates its function.

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?

Given the output schema exists, return values are documented elsewhere. The description provides enough context for a straightforward analysis tool: it identifies the target (routed copper for a net) and the criterion (load current). It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., net exists, copper routed) but these are implied by the domain. Overall, it is mostly complete for its complexity.

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. It mentions 'load current' which maps to expected_current_a, but does not explain ambient_temp_c or max_temp_rise_c. However, these parameter names are self-explanatory (with clear units), and the defaults provide further context. The description adds marginal value beyond the schema itself.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Check whether the routed copper for a net looks sufficient for the load current.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pdn_calculate_voltage_drop and thermal_check_copper_pour by focusing on current-carrying capacity of copper routing.

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 usage (when you need to verify copper adequacy for a given current) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not name alternative tools or specify exclusions, so it only meets the 'implied usage' level.

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