audit_find_designator_collisions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose a non-obvious behavioral trait: it walks source schematic sheets rather than compiled docs because compiled flattening auto-disambiguates multichannel instances and would hide real collisions. That is genuine insight an agent could not infer from the signature. It stops short of stating read-only/mutation status or cost/performance, keeping it at 4.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by rationale and return shape. The parenthetical about compiled flattening is long but earns its place because it prevents a wrong mental model of the scan; the Returns block is arguably redundant given the output schema, costing a point.

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-param, read-oriented audit tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger conditions, scan scope, and even restates the return shape. The only omission is explicit read-only framing, which matters since no annotations declare safety, so not a 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a 0-param schema applies. The description does clarify the implicit scope of what gets scanned (all source sheets), which adds marginal value over an empty object schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('find') and a precisely scoped resource ('schematic components that share a designator across sheets'), plus the source-sheet vs compiled-document distinction that further narrows what it inspects. An agent can tell this apart from proj_run_erc or audit_find_mixed_designator_rotation without opening a schema.

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?

Explains the triggering conditions clearly: duplicates introduced by paste-from-another-sheet or post-annotate edits that should be surfaced before ERC. It implies ERC as the downstream alternative ('before they hit ERC') but never names a sibling tool or an explicit when-not-to-use case, so it falls short of a 5.

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