Find Overlapping Elements

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations by specifying the types of overlaps detected and the detection context (spatial, schematic-level), which is useful and non-contradictory.

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 two sentences with no redundancy. The primary action is stated upfront, followed by clarifying examples, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 adequately explains the tool's purpose and scope, and the output schema covers return values. It does not explicitly mention the tolerance parameter's role in detection, but the schema covers it. Given the tool's moderate complexity, this is sufficient.

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 provides 100% parameter description coverage for both tolerance (with semantics and units) and schematicPath (with file format). The description adds no additional parameter context, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the specific verb 'Detect' and names the exact resource types (symbols, wires, labels). It provides concrete examples (duplicate power symbols, collinear overlapping wires, stacked labels) that clearly distinguish it from sibling tools like find_orphaned_wires or find_wires_crossing_symbols.

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 conveys when to use this tool—to find spatial overlaps in a schematic—and gives specific detection categories. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternative tools for other overlap types (e.g., check_courtyard_overlaps for board-level issues).

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