audit_find_orphan_power_objects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the detection mechanism (spatial iteration of a 1-mil square at each ePowerObject location for any eWire), the failure mode it catches (phantom power connections), and why ERC misses it. Read-only/non-destructive nature is implied by 'audit'/'find' but never stated outright, and there is no note on performance cost of the spatial iteration.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first sentence and the rest is substantive: mechanism, rationale, and return shape. It is somewhat long for a no-argument audit tool, and the SDK-derived/pattern note adds little for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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?

Despite an output schema existing, the description still sketches the returned dict ({checked, violations, items[]} with net, sheet, x_mils, y_mils) and clarifies that net comes from the marker's Text. Combined with the mechanism and failure-mode explanation, nothing an agent needs to call or interpret it is missing.

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; baseline is 4. The description correctly does not waste space on parameter discussion.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource — find schematic power-port markers sitting off-wire — and immediately distinguishes the tool from its sibling audit_find_orphan_net_labels. An agent can identify the target defect class without opening the 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?

It explains the diagnostic gap that motivates the tool (ERC sees a valid net because power rails often have multiple drivers) and names the symmetric sibling check, which effectively tells an agent when this audit applies. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or a routing rule to the sibling tool.

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