pcb_impedance_estimate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the use of closed-form formulas (approximate) and the two modes (matching nets vs hypothetical). It does not explicitly state it's read-only, but 'estimate' implies no side effects. Lacks details on required input state (board loaded).

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 that front-loads the core purpose and method. No redundant or extraneous text.

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 complexity of PCB impedance estimation and no output schema, the description covers the main functionality but leaves out details like return format, requirement for board state, and assumption of existing stackup data. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter is described in the schema. The description adds context about the two modes (matching nets vs hypothetical) but does not explain individual parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose: estimating single-ended and differential impedance using IPC-2141 formulas, for both existing nets and hypothetical traces. It distinguishes from sibling tools like pcb_current_capacity by focusing on impedance estimation.

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 impedance estimation but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. Since there are no sibling tools for impedance, the need for exclusions is lower, but it could mention prerequisites (e.g., board file loaded) or limitations.

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