audit_power_port_orientation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the pass/fail rule with concrete degree values, gives the rationale for why violations matter, and documents the return payload (checked / violations / items with text, style, expected, actual, sheet). It stops short of stating that the tool is read-only/non-mutating and what preconditions exist (active schematic document required).

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, the rule set is presented as a scannable list with exact enumerations and angles, and the closing rationale and Returns block are short and load-bearing. No filler sentences.

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 zero-arg audit with an output schema, the description covers rules, scope of symbols, and why the result matters. The one gap is operational context: it does not state whether it scans the active sheet or all sheets of the project, nor any prerequisite document state.

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 the baseline of 4 applies. The description's discussion of ground vs. bar symbol families is not parameter documentation but still clarifies what the tool inspects.

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: 'Check that schematic power-symbol orientations follow the standard convention', and enumerates exactly which symbol classes (grounds, power bars) and which expected angles are in scope. An agent can distinguish this from neighbouring audits such as audit_find_orphan_power_objects or audit_find_mixed_designator_rotation without opening any 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?

Usage is implied by the 'audit' framing and the note that violations are 'invariably an editing accident', but the description never says when to run it (before ERC? before release?), whether it is a prerequisite for anything, or how it relates to the other audit_* siblings. No exclusions or alternative tools are named.

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