calculate_via_stitching_array

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds domain context (standards, 'thermal resistance reduction metrics') but does not describe the actual computed result shape, and there is no output schema to compensate.

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 the verb front-loaded, standards and modes packed efficiently, and zero filler. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 calculation tool with 7 well-documented optional parameters, the description covers purpose and mode selection but offers no information about the returned output (no output schema exists) beyond the vague phrase 'thermal resistance reduction metrics'. Adequate but with a clear gap around results.

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 the schema already documents all 7 parameters with defaults and units. The description only adds standards context (lambda/10 pitch relating loosely to grid_pitch_mm) and does not explain parameter interactions 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 a specific verb ('Calculate') and a precisely scoped resource: thermal via matrix arrays under QFN/power exposed pads or RF ground shielding fences, citing IPC-7093 §7.2 and IPC-2141A. This is clearly distinguishable from nearby siblings like calculate_via_protection_plan or calculate_pcb_stackup_impedance.

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 names two concrete usage contexts – thermal management under exposed pads and RF shielding fences with <= lambda/10 pitch – which maps directly to the is_rf_shielding_fence flag. It gives clear context but stops short of explicit 'when not to use' guidance or naming an alternative tool.

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