analyze_differential_pair

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

The description lists what is measured, which gives some behavioral insight, but it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, whether it requires an existing pair, or if it has side effects. Since there are no annotations, the description carries the full burden, which is not met.

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 primary verb and lists all key measurement types. It is succinct without unnecessary words, though it could benefit from better structure to separate purpose from usage/parameter 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 existence of an output schema, return values need not be described, but the description omits critical context such as whether this analyzes a single pair (vs. plural), how to specify the pair, and prerequisites. The tool is simple but the description leaves significant ambiguity about its scope and usage 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 coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the meaning, format, or expected usage of the parameters 'pair' and 'path'. The description adds no value beyond the schema field names, so it fails to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation.

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 'Measure' with a clear resource 'differential pair' and enumerates the key measured attributes (pair lengths, skew, via balance, coupled length, edge gap). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like validate_differential_pair (which validates) and analyze_differential_pairs (which likely handles multiple pairs).

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 such as analyze_differential_pairs (plural) or measure_net_lengths. The description implies analysis of a single pair, but does not explicitly state that this is for one pair or when to prefer it over similar tools.

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