analyze_controlled_impedance

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

The only behavioral disclosure is that distances are interpreted in millimetres regardless of the document's Units attribute, which is useful. However, with no annotations, the description does not state whether the tool mutates anything, what it validates, or what side effects/return behavior to expect.

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 only two clauses and has no filler; the units note is worth stating. It is front-loaded, but its brevity comes at the cost of essential purpose information.

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 a nested constraints schema, 0% top-level parameter descriptions, many closely related sibling tools, and no annotations, this description is far from sufficient. It does not enable an agent to understand when to invoke the tool or how to structure the input.

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% for the top-level path and constraints parameters, so the description carries the burden. It adds unit semantics for all distances, but does not explain that constraints is an array of ImpedanceConstraintInput objects or how target_ohm/tolerance_ohm/width_mm interact.

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 only provides an alias ('validate_impedance_constraints') and a units note; it never states what analyze_controlled_impedance actually does. The tool name carries the verb and resource, but the description itself is nearly tautological and does not differentiate it from sibling impedance tools.

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 about when to choose this tool over calculate_impedance, validate_impedance_constraints, suggest_trace_geometry_for_impedance, or analyze_stackup_for_impedance. The alias hints it overlaps with validate_impedance_constraints but provides no selection criteria.

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