si_calculate_trace_width_for_impedance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Solve for...' without mentioning the return format, units, error handling, or any constraints on inputs. It does not reveal what happens for invalid inputs or whether it returns a single value or multiple solutions, so it is minimally transparent.

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 redundant words. It is appropriately concise for conveying the core purpose, even if it sacrifices depth.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is too thin for a design calculation tool with six parameters. It does not explain how parameters interact, which defaults are relevant, or when to choose different trace types. The minimal context leaves significant gaps for an agent to execute 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no additional meaning for the six parameters. Domain-specific terms like 'er', 'copper_oz', and 'trace_type' are not explained, and the description does not compensate for the lack of schema-level descriptions.

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's function: solving for a trace width given an impedance target. The verb 'Solve for' plus the resource 'trace width' makes it specific, and it naturally distinguishes itself from the sibling tool si_calculate_trace_impedance, which performs the inverse calculation.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like si_calculate_trace_impedance. The description simply states what it does without context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name.

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