design_review_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses the OLE parser, missing fields/subset coverage, inability to compile netlist or run ERC, the risk of misreading, the disabled-by-default behavior, the exact env var (EDA_AGENT_HEADLESS_REVIEW=1), and the error return when disabled. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs.

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 critical fact (fallback, off by default) followed by limitations, alternatives, and enablement. It is long but every block earns its place given the tool's risk profile; only minor redundancy between the coverage-list and the Returns section keeps it from a 5.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still sketches the return shape ({file, component_count, findings, summary}) and the error case. Combined with the coverage limitations and enablement instructions, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret results.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% and there is one required param, so the description must compensate; it does by explaining 'path' accepts a .SchDoc sheet or a .PrjPcb project (which reviews all its sheets). That adds real meaning beyond the bare 'string' schema type, though it does not cover path format/absolute-vs-relative nuances.

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 line names a specific verb and resource ('Offline FALLBACK review of a .SchDoc/.PrjPcb') and immediately scopes it against the preferred path. It explicitly distinguishes itself from named siblings (design_lint_report, proj_run_erc, design_review_snapshot, audit_*), so an agent can pick it apart from alternatives without reading 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?

States when NOT to use it ('NOT the preferred way', prefer live-Altium tools whenever a session is available) and when to reach for it ('only when Altium genuinely can't be opened (a file on disk, a CI runner)'). It names the concrete alternatives and the enabling condition, leaving nothing to inference.

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