calculate_serpentine_tuning_geometry

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing the design constraints it enforces (self-coupling suppression S >= 3W, H >= 3W) and the standard it follows, though it says nothing about the shape or structure of the 'vertex paths' it produces.

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 that front-loads the verb and the core resource before the constraint and standard clauses. No filler, though the technical density borders on over-compressed for a niche tool.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries more weight, and it partially compensates by stating that it generates vertex paths and what constraints are enforced. It omits the coordinate frame of the returned path relative to the start/end inputs, which would be useful, but for a calculation tool it is largely complete.

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 all six parameters are already documented in the schema with units, defaults, and roles. The description adds no further parameter meaning beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 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 a specific verb (calculate) plus a precise resource (high-speed differential pair serpentine delay tuning meander geometry) and cites the governing standard IPC-2141A Section 5.3. It distinguishes itself from the related sibling calculate_differential_skew by focusing on geometry rather than skew, though it does not name that sibling 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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'high-speed differential pair serpentine delay tuning,' which signals the context in which the tool applies. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives such as calculate_differential_skew or calculate_trace_impedance, so the agent must infer fit.

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