si_check_differential_pair_skew

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. 'Estimate' suggests a read-only analysis, but the description does not explicitly state that the tool does not modify the board, nor does it describe any prerequisites, side effects, or output format. This is a notable gap for a no-annotation 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, focused sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the verb and the key object, making it easy to scan and quickly understand the tool's core 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?

For a tool with four parameters, no annotations, and a likely non-trivial analysis process, the description is too terse. It does not explain how the tool identifies differential pairs from the net names, how er and trace_type affect the calculation, or what the output represents. Even though an output schema exists, the description insufficiently frames the tool's overall behavior within the broader design 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 four parameters (net_p, net_n, er, trace_type). There is no explanation of what nets are, how the dielectric constant or trace type influences the estimation, or any other parameter semantics. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema-level detail.

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 identifies a precise resource: 'differential-pair length skew and delay mismatch from board tracks.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like si_calculate_trace_impedance or emc_check_differential_pair_symmetry, which target different quantities or checks.

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 the tool is used to estimate length skew and delay mismatch on differential pairs, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusionary conditions. No alternative tools are referenced, so the usage context is only implied, not fully clarified.

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