get_stackup

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

The description adds a meaningful behavioral guarantee—that it does not fabricate missing Dk values—which goes beyond simply stating the function. However, with no annotations provided, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as read-only nature, error behavior, or permission requirements. For a simple getter, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 is front-loaded with the core action and resource. No wasted words; every part adds value. It is optimally concise and well-structured.

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 the tool is simple and has an output schema, the description lacks essential context about the 'path' parameter and does not explain how requests are structured. It also does not clarify when to use this tool relative to stackup-related siblings. The absence of parameter documentation makes the description incomplete for an agent to invoke confidently.

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 schema has one parameter ('path') with zero description coverage, and the tool description does not mention or explain it at all. The agent cannot determine what 'path' refers to (e.g., file path, document ID, resource path). Since schema coverage is 0%, the description needed to compensate but failed to provide any parameter semantics.

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 a specific action ('Return') and resource ('normalized physical layer stack'), and adds a key behavioral constraint ('without inventing missing Dk values') that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'analyze_stackup_for_impedance'. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies that it returns stackup data, but does not mention use cases, exclusions, or alternatives such as 'analyze_stackup_for_impedance' for impedance analysis. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name and context.

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