pcb_current_density_report

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses the estimation approach and the 'mark low nets' behavior, but does not clarify whether 'mark' is a visual overlay, a persistent design modification, or a report output, and it does not mention side effects or prerequisites.

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 entire description is one short, front-loaded sentence that packs the purpose, method, and expected outcome with no filler or repetition.

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 zero-parameter analysis/report tool, the description is reasonably complete: it names the calculation standard, the input concept (trace width sum), and the output behavior (flagging low-capacity nets). It does not detail the report format or threshold, but the low complexity reduces the burden.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds useful semantic context by explaining that the calculation converts summed trace width per net into a current capacity estimate, which is more informative than an empty schema.

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 a specific action (estimate current-carrying capacity), the target resource (each net), the method (IPC-2221, sum of trace widths to current capacity), and the outcome (mark low-capacity nets). This distinguishes it from sibling report/calculation tools like pcb_design_health_report or calc_trace_width.

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 context is implied but not explicit: it is for evaluating net current-carrying capacity across the board. It does not state when to prefer this over alternatives such as calc_trace_width or pcb_run_drc, nor are exclusions provided.

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