Check Clearance

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds that it reports design-rule compliance, which is helpful but does not disclose any additional behavior such as edge cases, prerequisites, or error handling. It is adequate but not rich.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It is 18 words, contains no fluff, and every phrase contributes meaning.

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?

Given that an output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description sufficiently explains the tool's core function. It does not mention prerequisites like a loaded board, but that is implied by the tool context. It is complete for a straightforward check tool, though a note on limitations would push it to 5.

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%, with all properties (item1, item2, id, type, position, etc.) already described. The description does not add parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides, which meets the baseline for full coverage but does not elevate it.

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 a specific verb ('check') and names a concrete resource ('clearance between two PCB items'), lists the item types (track, via, pad, zone, component), and states the outcome ('report whether it meets design rules'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_placement_clearance and check_courtyard_overlaps.

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 clearly indicates the use case: checking actual clearance between two specific PCB items and design rule compliance. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool (e.g., for placement-specific clearance), so it stops short of a full 5.

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