Analyze power-tree current and thermal budget

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 the analysis scope but no operational context such as required inputs, whether the tool depends on a loaded project, or failure modes. The return-shape sentence is redundant given an output schema exists.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the analysis scope front-loaded and the return statement trailing. Well sized for the amount of information it conveys.

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 an 8-parameter tool with nested objects and zero schema description coverage, the description should carry far more weight. It omits parameter semantics and usage conditions, and its return-value sentence is unnecessary because an output schema 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 0% across 8 parameters (rails, loads, sources, regulators, capacitors, protections, limits, projectId). The description names several conceptual categories that loosely map to those parameters, but it provides no format, required-vs-optional, or unit semantics to compensate for the total absence of schema descriptions.

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 (Analyze) and resource (power tree) and enumerates the analyzed domains: sources, regulators, loads, protection, bulk capacitance, current budget, dropout, thermal risk. This clearly distinguishes it from the schematic/BOM/board siblings. It stops short of naming the alternatives or conditions that select it.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the power-integrity analysis entry point rather than, say, a DRC or ERC check.

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