audit_find_invalid_regions

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral burden: it states read-only behavior, explains why it does not auto-delete, and discloses that it skips primitives owned by components or dimensions. It also describes the return structure and practical consequences such as DRC violations and board bloat.

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 purpose is front-loaded, followed by context, safety rationale, and return shape. Every sentence adds useful information for correct selection and interpretation.

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 zero-parameter read-only audit tool with an output schema, this is complete. It explains what is checked, what is skipped, why it matters, and what the results contain.

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 no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics because there are none.

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 and resource: find PCB polygon regions whose area is zero or unset. This clearly distinguishes the tool from generic polygon inspection or repair tools by targeting invalid zero-area regions.

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?

It explains the situation that produces these regions (cancelled pours, corrupted imports) and explicitly states the tool is read-only, with deletion belonging in a separate user-confirmed mutating flow. It does not name an alternative sibling tool, but the usage boundary is clear.

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