audit_find_mirrored_pcb_text

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

With zero annotations the description carries the full burden and does so: it explains the underlying geometric rule, why the defect only surfaces at fab review, exactly which object class is in scope versus excluded, and the shape of the result including both possible reason codes. Nothing material about the check's behavior is left to inference.

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 one-line purpose, then the rule, the scope exclusion, and the return contract in labeled blocks. The fab-review anecdote is a touch long for the information it adds, but it justifies why the check matters rather than padding with restated field names.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still names the keys and enum values, and with no parameters there is nothing else an agent needs. The definition is complete for a read-only, zero-argument audit.

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, which is the baseline-4 case. The description correctly implies there is nothing to configure and instead spends its words on scope and output, which is the right allocation.

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 and resource (find free-floating PCB text / eTextObject) and the exact defect condition (mirrored on the wrong overlay). It also explicitly scopes out component designators and comments, which no sibling tool name makes obvious, so an agent can separate it from pcb_place_text, pcb_autoplace_silkscreen, or the other audit_* checks.

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?

Implicitly positions the tool as a pre-fab-review QA check and gives a clear exclusion rule (not designators, which Altium auto-flips). It does not name a concrete alternative tool or state prerequisites such as an open PCB document, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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