analyze_stackup_for_impedance

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool finds, not how results are returned, what 'complete' means, whether it is read-only, or any side effects. Critical behavioral context is missing.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the action and object. It is concise without wasted words, though the brevity borders on under-specification.

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 about the intended use within an impedance analysis workflow, what qualifies as a 'complete' geometry, and why this tool exists alongside siblings. The description is too sparse to be fully actionable.

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?

The only parameter 'path' has 0% schema coverage and is not mentioned in the description. The description adds zero semantic meaning for the parameter, leaving the agent with no guidance on what value to provide or how it affects the search.

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 ('Find') and resource ('complete outer-layer microstrip geometries in the physical stackup'), making the core action clear. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling impedance tools like calculate_impedance by focusing on geometry discovery rather than calculation. However, the term 'complete' is ambiguous and not defined.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as analyze_controlled_impedance or suggest_trace_geometry_for_impedance. The description gives no context about prerequisites, workflow positioning, or exclusions.

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