validate_impedance_constraints

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds an important non-obvious behavioral fact: all distances are in millimetres regardless of the document's Units attribute. The word 'validate' implies read-only behavior, though side effects are not explicitly ruled out.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first states the core validation behavior, the second delivers the essential units caveat. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

For a tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and key unit normalization. It omits explanation of tolerance behavior and the optional path parameter, but these are partly inferable from the schema. Could be more explicit about how this validation differs from other impedance-related siblings.

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%, so the description must compensate. It maps net/layer/target constraints to the required input fields and clarifies the critical unit convention for width_mm. It does not explicitly explain tolerance_ohm or the optional path parameter, but the schema provides types, defaults, and basic titles for those.

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 ('Validate') and identifies a clear resource: explicit net/layer/target constraints checked against routed widths and stackup. This precisely distinguishes it from sibling tools like validate_differential_pair or calculate_impedance.

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 for validating explicit impedance constraints against physical routing and stackup data, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over related tools such as analyze_controlled_impedance or calculate_impedance. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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