solve_via_current_array

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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. Beyond that, the description adds useful behavioral context by disclosing the calculation basis: annular barrel cross-section from drill and plating, internal/external k constants, 40% array current-sharing derate, and IPC-4761 Type VII fill+cap credit.

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?

The definition is a single dense sentence, but it is front-loaded with the core function and follows with the key calculation details. Every clause is technical and relevant, though the density makes it slightly harder to parse than a more structured description would be.

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 seven-parameter engineering solver with no output schema, the description gives enough context to understand the calculation method and the return value: the minimum parallel via count. It could say more about output shape or edge-case behavior, but the essential calling context is present.

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 parameter is already well documented. The description adds some semantic context by explaining that drill and plating drive annular cross-section and that internal_layer selects k constants, but it does not materially expand on the per-parameter documentation.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: it computes via barrel current capacity and solves a stitching array, returning the minimum parallel via count for a rail current. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like calculate_via_stitching_array or calculate_ipc2152_trace_current because it focuses on current-carrying via count rather than geometry or trace sizing.

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 implied use case is sizing via stitching arrays for a given rail current under IPC thermal rules, which is clear from context. However, the description does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over calculate_via_stitching_array or calculate_ipc2152_trace_current, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites.

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