calculate_differential_skew

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool also computes serpentine bump count and tuning geometry, which is useful scope context, but it does not say whether sizing/fabrication constraints apply or how results are reported.

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 sentence that front-loads the primary action and tolerances before the secondary geometry output. It is dense and somewhat overstuffed with protocol budgets, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden; it gestures at 'bumps count and geometry' but gives no format or units. The required parameter and all optional parameters are documented in the schema, and the key gap is the unaddressed overlap with calculate_serpentine_tuning_geometry.

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 every parameter including the enum protocol list and defaults is already documented in the schema. The description alludes to the P-minus-N length delta but adds no syntax, units, or interpretation guidance beyond what the schema provides.

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+resource (calculating intra-pair propagation delay skew) and names the target protocols with concrete tolerance budgets, which is far more informative than the bare name. However it never distinguishes itself from the close sibling calculate_serpentine_tuning_geometry, whose scope it explicitly overlaps.

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?

Usage is implied by the protocol budgets (USB2.0 HS ≤10ps etc.) and the required trace_length_delta_mm input, so an agent can infer this is a post-layout skew check. But there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no routing to the overlapping serpentine_tuning_geometry sibling.

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