audit_find_components_outside_board_outline

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it explains the off-canvas failure mode, why DRC does not catch it, the polygon-inside algorithm used, and the return structure. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or mention permissions/active-document requirements, but the audit behavior is otherwise transparent.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and uses short, structured paragraphs. The return-value block and the implementation-pattern reference are somewhat redundant given the output schema, but they do not obscure the main guidance.

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?

For a no-parameter audit tool, the description covers the purpose, the failure mode it detects, the geometric method, and the result shape. It could more explicitly state that it operates on the active PCB document, but the overall context is sufficient to call it correctly.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately avoids inventing parameter guidance.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: find PCB components whose origin is outside the board outline. This clearly distinguishes it from unrelated audits and from DRC, which the description explicitly says will not catch this condition.

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 gives a concrete use case — catching components accidentally dragged off the PCB — and explains why normal review and DRC miss it. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use this audit, but the triggering context is clear.

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