calculate_creepage_isolation_slot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context by naming the governing standards (IPC-2221B Table 6-1, IEC 62368-1) and the artifacts produced, but does not describe return format, units of output, or assumptions/limits beyond what annotations and schema carry.

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?

One dense sentence, front-loaded with the evaluation purpose before the slot-planning action. Every clause maps to a real capability (compliance check, slot geometry, effective creepage path), though the length borders on over-packed for a single sentence.

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 7-parameter, no-output-schema calculation tool, the description covers what is computed and, via 'slot width, length, endpoints, and expanded effective creepage path', hints at the returned geometry. It stops short of specifying output units or failure/compliance reporting, which is a minor gap given the absent output schema.

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%, with defaults and units documented per property, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description reinforces the slot-related parameters ('slot width, length, endpoints') but adds no syntax, units, or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

States specific verbs and resources: 'evaluate high-voltage electrical creepage compliance... and plan an air isolation milled slot'. An agent can tell this computes creepage plus slot geometry rather than mere clearance. However it never names or contrasts with the nearby sibling calculate_ipc2221_clearance, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 clause 'when surface distance is insufficient' gives an implied condition for the slot-planning portion of the tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use framing for the evaluation step and no routing to alternatives such as calculate_ipc2221_clearance or evaluate_material_cti_creepage. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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