calculate_ipc2152_trace_current

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, which fully covers the safety profile of a pure calculator. The description adds the IPC-2152 standard as the computational basis, but says nothing about the numerical method, boundary behavior, or validity range that would add real behavioral context.

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 with no filler, front-loading both the action and the two output modes before the parameter list. It is dense but every clause carries information, though the parenthetical unit annotations are slightly redundant with the schema.

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 stateless calculator with full schema descriptions and a mode enum that captures the two return shapes, the definition is nearly sufficient. The absence of any statement about return format is acceptable since the schema's mode descriptions describe what each path yields, though an explicit note on output units would round it out.

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 each of the six parameters is already documented in the schema with defaults, units, and the mode-dependent requirement. The description merely restates three of them (copper weight, temperature rise, layer position), adding no syntax or format 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 (calculate) and resource (IPC-2152 conductor current / PCB trace width), and names the governing standard and the two solve directions. It is clearly distinguishable from impedance or clearance calculators by the IPC-2152 reference, though it never names the nearest sibling (calculate_trace_impedance) explicitly.

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 phrase 'for given copper weight (oz), temperature rise (ΔT °C), and layer position' implies the required input context, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives such as calculate_trace_impedance or calculate_ipc2221_clearance.

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