Check Courtyard Overlaps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it returns overlap pairs with intersection extents (mm) and per-component boundary violations. It also implies non-destructive validation by mentioning 'before committing' a placement. This complements 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 three tightly written sentences. It front-loads the primary purpose in the first sentence, then explains the key use case and output. No redundant phrases or filler; every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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 the output schema and rich annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, optionality, use case, and return summary. The schema documents parameter details, so the description does not need to repeat them. The tool's role in placement validation is fully conveyed.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the purpose of the 'positions' parameter as a hypothetical placement for pre-commit validation. This clarifies the intended semantics of a complex nested object beyond its structural definition.

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 states the tool's function: 'Detect courtyard overlaps between footprints' and optionally flag boundary violations. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling check tools like check_placement_clearance or check_clearance by focusing on courtyards and board outline compliance.

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 provides a clear usage context: validating hypothetical placements before committing a move_component or place_component. It explains when to use the tool via the 'positions' parameter, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, though the context is sufficiently clear.

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