analyze_power_tree

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the analytical scope (dropout headroom, thermal dissipation) but says nothing about failure modes, required regulator/chip data, or how partial or missing module data is handled. Some added value, but thin beyond what annotations provide.

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?

A single dense sentence with no filler; the analytical outputs are front-loaded after the primary verb. It is slightly run-on with no sentence breaks separating the four analysis dimensions, which caps it below a 5.

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 read-only analysis tool with no output schema, the description conveys the main result categories (current budgets in mA, dropout headroom, junction temperature), which is enough to set expectations. It stops short of describing result structure or handling of incomplete module/netlist input, leaving a small gap.

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%, and every parameter (modules, netlist, ambient_temp_c with its default and unit) is documented in the schema itself. The description hints at ambient temperature via the junction-temperature calculation but adds no format, unit, or structural detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Analyze') plus a concrete resource ('system-level power distribution architecture') and enumerates the exact quantities computed: load current budgets in mA, regulator dropout headroom, and LDO thermal/junction-temperature estimates. No sibling tool in the list performs power-tree analysis, so these enumerated outputs implicitly separate it from the many calculate_* trace/thermal/clearance utilities.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. The dependency on synthesize_circuit is only visible in the input schema's parameter descriptions, not in the description itself, so an agent gets no routing or sequencing help from this text.

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