si_generate_stackup

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the function but does not disclose whether the tool modifies the design, how 'practical' is determined, or any input constraints or side effects. The one-liner adds minimal behavioral context beyond the name.

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 concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and structurally clean, but its brevity sacrifices explanatory content. For what it is, it earns high marks for conciseness.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description lacks essential context: when to use this tool versus related SI tools, how parameters influence the recommendation, and what 'practical' means. The agent is left without enough guidance for correct invocation in varied scenarios.

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 explain any of the 5 parameters (er, copper_oz, layer_count, manufacturer, target_impedance_ohm). The only weak hint is 'target trace geometry', which loosely relates to target_impedance_ohm, but this is insufficient for an agent to understand parameter meaning or relationships.

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 verb 'Generate' and the resource ('practical board stackup recommendation and target trace geometry'). It distinguishes this tool from related siblings like si_calculate_trace_impedance (which computes impedance) and si_synthesize_stackup_for_interfaces (which targets interfaces specifically).

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like si_calculate_trace_impedance or si_synthesize_stackup_for_interfaces. It doesn't mention contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.

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