suggest_trace_geometry_for_impedance

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

The description discloses an important behavioral trait: all distances are in millimetres regardless of the document's Units attribute. Without annotations, however, it does not disclose limitations of the analytical model, whether the tool modifies the document, or what happens if no width within the specified bounds satisfies the target impedance. The unit clarification adds value but the behavioral burden is only partially 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 two sentences: one states the core function, the other clarifies units. No redundant or filler content. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 no annotations and no visible output schema, the description must provide context about what the tool returns and how it handles edge cases. It does not mention the output format, failure behavior when no width satisfies the target impedance, or the relationship to sibling impedance tools. For a synthesis tool with 7 parameters, the description is too minimal to be fully contextually complete.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds unit context for distance parameters (copper_thickness_mm, dielectric_height_mm, minimum_width_mm, maximum_width_mm) and implies min/max act as bounds via 'bounded microstrip width'. Parameter names like target_ohm, tolerance_ohm, and dielectric_constant are descriptive enough, but the description does not explain semantics beyond what property names suggest. Some compensation, but not full.

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 function: synthesize a bounded microstrip width using an analytical model. The verb 'synthesize' and resource 'bounded microstrip width' are specific, and the mention of 'analytical model' distinguishes it from tools like calculate_impedance which compute impedance from geometry.

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: to determine a microstrip width for a target impedance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like calculate_impedance, analyze_stackup_for_impedance, or validate_impedance_constraints. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.

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