audit_variant_not_fitted

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does a good job: it describes the audit as the detection-only half, notes that review precedes board edits in the remediation step, and documents the empty-variant edge case. It stops short of explicitly stating it is read-only or describing permissions/side effects, so it is strong but not fully exhaustive.

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, then supplies concise manufacturing context, the identify/remediation split, and the return shape. The length is justified by the domain context and the need to explain why this is separate from the remediation tool.

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-parameter audit with an output schema and no annotations, the description is complete: it covers purpose, variant scoping, edge cases, sibling relationship, and the returned fields (`variant`, `checked`, `violations`, `items`). An agent has everything needed to call and interpret it correctly.

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, so there is no parameter semantics to compensate for; the baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on scoping implied by the current variant rather than inventing parameters.

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 states a specific action and resource: it lists components marked Not Fitted in the project's CURRENT variant. It also distinguishes itself from the remediation sibling by calling itself the identify half. The scope and output object are clear enough to select this tool confidently.

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 explains exactly when to use the tool: to identify Not-Fitted components that should not receive paste and may need DNP silkscreen treatment. It explicitly names `pcb_apply_dnp_paste_exclusion` as the remediation alternative and explains the deliberate two-call sequencing so the list can be reviewed before board edits.

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