Analyze power-tree current and thermal budget

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's role is reduced. It adds that the tool returns 'machine-readable issues' and 'human-readable summary', which is useful context about output format but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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 description is a single sentence that front-loads key actions and resources, achieving maximum conciseness without filler. Every word contributes to describing functionality.

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?

Despite having an output schema and detailed input schema, the description lacks details about the analysis methodology, issue detection scope, or result interpretation. For a complex tool with 8 parameters, nested objects, and power tree analysis, more context (e.g., 'Checks for dropout violations, thermal margins, and capacitance adequacy') would make it 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 coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. While it mentions some elements (sources, regulators, loads, etc.) that align with schema arrays, it does not explain each parameter's purpose, requirements, or how to structure inputs. The schema itself is detailed, but without guidance, an AI agent may struggle to construct valid inputs.

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 uses specific verb 'analyze' and explicitly lists the resources involved: supply sources, regulators, loads, protection, bulk capacitance, current budget, dropout, and thermal risk. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools which focus on schematic, BOM, or board features.

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 implies this tool is used for power tree analysis but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, and given many sibling tools, some guidance (e.g., 'Use after schematic completion') would help.

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