cst_pcb_differential_pair

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the creation and calculation behavior, but lacks details on side effects, required project state, destructiveness, or whether it modifies existing objects. Important traits like creating geometry in the active CST project are not mentioned.

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 concise with two sentences. The first sentence clearly states the main purpose, and the second adds relevant technical context. No superfluous content.

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 complexity (11 parameters, no output schema) and the presence of many sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., the impedance value or just geometry), nor does it mention any prerequisites like an open project or required prior steps.

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 100% with each parameter already described in the schema. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond listing the parameters indirectly via the formula. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 creates a differential pair of PCB traces, specifies the geometry (two parallel bricks separated by a gap), and mentions the impedance calculation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cst_pcb_create_trace (single trace) and other PCB structures.

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 when a differential pair is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., single trace creation or other matching tools). No guidance on prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is not appropriate.

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