calc_trace_width

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the purpose and does not mention whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or what output format to expect. This lack of behavioral transparency is a significant gap, though the 'calc' prefix suggests a non-destructive operation.

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, concise sentence in Chinese that includes the purpose and the relevant standard (IPC-2221). There is no redundant information, and it is front-loaded with the action and resource.

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 simple calculation tool with no output schema, the description is adequate to convey the core function. However, it does not specify the result unit (e.g., mil or mm), error conditions, or any behavioral notes, leaving some gaps for an agent to infer.

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 100% parameter description coverage, so the tool description does not need to add parameter details. The description mentions 'current-carrying requirements' which maps to the 'current' parameter, but adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema. 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 calculates the minimum trace width based on current-carrying requirements, referencing the IPC-2221 standard. It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from the sibling calc_impedance by focusing on trace width rather than 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 the usage context: use this tool when you need to determine trace width from current requirements. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as when to use calc_impedance instead. The context is clear but not fully explicit.

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