si_calculate_decoupling_placement

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

Annotations are empty, so the description carries the full burden. 'Estimate ... quality' implies a non-mutating analysis, but it does not disclose whether the board is modified, what inputs are validated, what output format is returned, or what assumptions the estimation relies on. This is insufficient behavioral transparency for a tool with no annotation support.

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, focused sentence with no filler or redundant content. It front-loads the core purpose and is appropriately concise, even though the brevity comes at the expense of other dimensions.

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?

Though an output schema exists (not shown in this context), the tool remains underspecified: no mention of error conditions, prerequisites, interpretation of the quality estimate, or relationship to other SI/EMC tools. With three required parameters and no annotations, this one-line description is not contextually complete for reliable agent invocation.

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 tool description provides no parameter explanations. The agent only sees parameter names (ic_ref, power_pin, target_freq_mhz) and types, with no guidance on units, reference formats, or expected value ranges. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, which is already bare.

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 a specific verb ('Estimate') and resource ('decoupling placement quality around an IC power pin'), clearly positioning it as an analysis/estimation tool distinct from placement (pcb_place_decoupling_caps) or compliance checking (emc_check_decoupling_placement). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools by name or scope, so it falls just short of full clarity.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like emc_check_decoupling_placement or pdn_recommend_decoupling_caps. It merely states the action without contextual cues, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name and sibling list.

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