calc_pll

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description reinforces this with 'without changing anything' and adds meaningful behavioral detail: no-target mode reports current frequencies, target mode returns solutions, and only enabled outputs can be solved. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-line identity, a clear mode split, an example, a pointer to the applying tool, and a constraint. Every sentence contributes useful information with no repetition or filler.

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?

The description covers the core behaviors, the main parameter semantics, the read-only nature, the follow-up action, and a key constraint (only enabled outputs). The main gap is the undocumented 'max_results' parameter, but overall the tool is understandable and actionable as described.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the 'targets' parameter with a concrete JSON example and the optionality via 'with no targets', but it leaves 'project', 'name', and 'max_results' semantically unexplained. Since multiple parameters are undocumented in both schema and description, compensation is incomplete.

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 clearly identifies the tool as a PLL calculator and specifies its two modes: reporting current VCO/PLL/output frequencies when no targets are given, and returning counter/divider solutions when targets are provided. This distinguishes calc_pll from sibling tools like edit_interface and run_sta_tcl.

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 explains when to use the no-target vs target modes and directs the user to apply a solution via 'edit_interface op auto_calc_pll', naming an alternative for the follow-up action. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool versus other PLL-related tools, but the context is clear.

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