audit_find_unmatched_ports

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does well: it says the tool walks compiled docs to cover multichannel designs and groups ports by flattened net name. It also documents the return structure. It stops short of explicitly stating that the operation is read-only or describing any preconditions, but the audit framing is clear.

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 description is front-loaded with the core purpose and then uses structured bullets for the two issue types. It is appropriately sized for a multi-case audit, though the return-value section is somewhat redundant given the output schema.

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 no-parameter audit with an output schema, the description is complete enough: it defines the issues, explains compiled-doc behavior, and summarizes returns. It could mention explicit prerequisites such as an active compiled project, but lacks no critical information for invocation.

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 are no parameter semantics to explain. Baseline 4 applies; the description appropriately focuses on scope and return shape rather than inventing parameter guidance.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Find schematic nets with port-direction mismatches across sheets.' It further enumerates the exact issue types it detects (multi_output and no_driver), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishable from generic net or ERC tools.

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 two failure cases it catches and why they matter, which implies when the audit is useful. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus sibling audits such as audit_find_floating_ports or audit_find_single_pin_nets, leaving alternative selection to inference.

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