si_check_via_stub

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It says 'Estimate,' which suggests a non-destructive analysis, but it does not clarify what happens when via_positions is null, whether the current selection is used, or whether the tool modifies the board. This ambiguity is significant given the default null value.

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 information. It states the verb, object, and context efficiently.

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?

With no annotations and zero schema description coverage, the one-line description is insufficient for a three-parameter tool. It omits prerequisites (e.g., active board, via model), behavior with defaults, and input format details. The output schema exists, but that does not compensate for missing input/behavioral 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%, so the description must compensate for parameter documentation. It mentions 'selected vias,' which loosely maps to via_positions, but it does not explain the coordinate format, the meaning of 'er', or the units/usage of frequency_ghz. The schema provides property names and defaults, but no 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 uses a specific verb ('Estimate') with a clear resource ('via-stub resonance and risk') and scope ('selected vias on the active board'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like si_check_differential_pair_skew or si_calculate_trace_impedance.

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 for via-stub analysis on the active board, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. It relies on the tool name and context to convey the intended use case.

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