audit_find_removed_pad_shapes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does: it declares the tool read-only, gives the exact detection predicates (Via.SizeOnLayer(L) <= Via.HoleSize, Pad.IsPadRemoved(L)), and explains that it returns coordinates rather than highlighting on canvas. An agent knows there are no mutations and how a violation is determined.

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 statement, then context, detection logic, and returns in clearly sectioned form. The 'Returns' block overlaps with the existing output schema, which is mild redundancy, but the remaining text is dense and earns its place.

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?

Zero-parameter read-only audit with an output schema; the description covers purpose, trigger condition, detection semantics, and the counting convention ('one via removed on 3 layers counts as 3'). Nothing an agent needs to invoke or interpret it correctly 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 to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly spends no space on nonexistent inputs.

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 pads / vias whose copper annular ring has been removed on layers where it's still needed.' This is precisely differentiated from adjacent audits (audit_find_pads_near_board_edge, audit_tented_via_ratio, pcb_normalize_vias) without needing 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?

Explains the real-world condition under which this matters (aggressive 'Remove Unused Pad Shapes' leaving a via with no annular ring, causing silent open traces at fab), which tells an agent exactly when to reach for it. It stops short of naming alternatives or explicit exclusions, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not routing.

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