calc_trace_width

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a calculation following IPC-2221, which implies a deterministic, non-destructive operation. However, it does not mention return format, units of the calculated width, or behavior for invalid inputs, leaving moderate gaps.

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 focused sentence that states the essential purpose and standard with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized and effectively front-loaded.

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?

Inputs and defaults are fully documented in the schema, and the purpose is clear. However, with no output schema, the description does not specify the result's units or format, which is a meaningful gap for interpreting the tool's return value in a PCB design context.

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 parameters are already well-documented with units and defaults. The description adds general formula context but does not enrich any specific parameter beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline-3 case.

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 states a specific action ('计算最小走线宽度'), a clear resource ('minimum trace width'), and the governing standard ('IPC-2221'), which makes the tool's purpose immediately identifiable. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like calc_impedance because it targets trace width based on current-carrying requirements.

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 clear context: use this tool when you need to size a trace for a given current-carrying requirement according to IPC-2221. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, such as distinguishing from calc_impedance, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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