thermal_calculate_via_count

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

With empty annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the high-level purpose but does not mention whether the tool is read-only, requires a board context, relies on calculations, or returns a result. No side effects or assumptions are disclosed. The lack of any behavioral context beyond the basic function leaves the agent uninformed.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action, and contains no fluff. However, it is under-specified: it omits critical parameter and usage information that could have been included without adding much length. It is concise but not effectively structured to convey the necessary details.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (three parameters, one required) and empty annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the calculation model, assume any board state, or clarify the meaning of inputs. While an output schema exists (helping with return values), the description lacks information about when this tool is relevant, how the calculation works, and what assumptions are made. This is insufficient for an agent to select and invoke it 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%, so the description must compensate for the parameters. It does not explain power_w, via_diameter_mm, or thermal_resistance_target. The phrase 'target resistance' vaguely maps to thermal_resistance_target, but no units, defaults, or relationships are provided. The description adds essentially no semantic value beyond the parameter names.

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: 'Estimate how many stitched thermal vias are needed for the target resistance.' It uses a specific verb ('estimate') and identifies the resource (stitched thermal vias) and the goal (achieving target resistance). This distinguishes it from siblings like emc_check_via_stitching or thermal_check_copper_pour, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies its use for thermal via count estimation but does not mention any preconditions, exclusions, or relation to other thermal/EMC tools. A clear gap given the presence of nearby tools like emc_check_via_stitching.

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