audit_find_unlocked_component_primitives

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the failure mode, why components become unlocked, and the exact return shape {checked, violations, items[]}, but leaves read-only status and any side effects implied rather than explicitly stated.

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 in the first sentence, and the subsequent explanation of the bug class adds useful context. The narrative is slightly long but each paragraph earns its place by clarifying the risk and return format.

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?

Given zero parameters, an output schema, and no annotations, the description is complete: it defines the audit target, explains the consequence of the defect, documents the return dictionary, and names a remediation follow-up (obj_batch_modify).

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 has zero parameters and an empty schema, so there is no parameter meaning to convey. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on purpose and return values instead.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource: 'Find placed components whose internal primitives are NOT locked.' It precisely scopes the audit to a distinct defect class, making it easy to distinguish from generic PCB audit siblings.

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?

The description clearly explains the diagnostic context—unlocked primitives as a silent fab-bug—and explicitly says to pair with obj_batch_modify for re-locking. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use this' statement or named alternative audit tools, keeping it just 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.