calc_impedance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic operations and supported modes; it does not disclose output units, formula assumptions, handling of invalid or conflicting parameters, or any limits on accuracy or applicability.

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 short sentences with no filler. The primary operations are front-loaded, and the supported geometry list is compactly appended.

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 output schema, no annotations, and a 7-parameter calculation tool, the description should clarify expected results, permissible parameter combinations, and constraints. It does none of that, leaving an agent to infer return values and optional-parameter behavior from parameter names alone.

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%, so the schema already documents every parameter, including the default values and the mutual exclusivity between width and targetImpedance. The description adds only a concise restatement of the dual calculation direction and mode support, which does not meaningfully extend the structured 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 the tool's actions: compute PCB trace impedance or reverse-calculate trace width from a target impedance, and lists supported geometries. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the sibling calc_trace_width, which likely overlaps in the reverse-calculation use case.

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 when the tool is useful by naming impedance calculation, reverse width calculation, and supported transmission-line types. It does not provide explicit when-to-use versus alternatives guidance, such as when to choose calc_trace_width instead of calc_impedance.

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