si_calculate_trace_impedance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only hints at approximation via 'Estimate' and 'quasi-static', but does not disclose what the tool returns, what trace_type options are supported, or any limitations of the formulas. This is a significant transparency gap.

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 that immediately conveys the tool's core function without any filler. It is front-loaded and every word contributes meaning.

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 tool with six parameters, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain input semantics, supported trace types, or how results should be interpreted, even though an output schema exists it does not compensate for the missing parameter context.

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 does not mention any of the six parameters. It adds no meaning beyond the raw schema, so an agent has no help understanding width_mm, height_mm, copper_oz, spacing_mm, or trace_type.

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 PCB trace impedance, a specific calculation distinct from inverse or extraction tools like si_calculate_trace_width_for_impedance and pcb_get_impedance_for_trace. The verb 'Estimate' and resource 'PCB trace impedance' provide a precise, unambiguous purpose.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that si_calculate_trace_width_for_impedance is the inverse operation or that pcb_get_impedance_for_trace retrieves impedance from an existing board, leaving all usage context to be inferred from the tool name.

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