pcb_copy_tracks_radial

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral load well: it discloses that copies are left unselected so the source set stays put, and that the transform is the same verified one used by pcb_replicate_layout. It is thin on failure modes (just 'or an error') and says nothing about undo or layer/net implications of the copied primitives.

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?

Core behavior is front-loaded in the first two sentences, followed by conventional Args/Returns sections. Mild waste from reST double-backticks and some repetition of the count/angle semantics between prose and Args.

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?

Covers selection precondition, geometry semantics, default derivation, and side effects (unselected copies), which is everything needed for a 4-parameter mutation tool. An output schema exists, and the description's brief Returns note is consistent rather than redundant filler.

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 description coverage is 0% (bare titles), so the description must compensate and does: units for center_x/center_y (mils), the meaning of count as total instances including the original, and angle_step's default of 360/count with the 'full even ring' interpretation.

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: radially array the selected tracks/arcs/vias about a center point, replicating them count-1 times. It also positions itself relative to pcb_replicate_layout by noting it reuses the same Replicate + RotateAroundXY transform, so an agent can tell the two apart.

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?

Makes clear this acts on the current selection (not on named objects) and that count must be >= 2, which is enough context to invoke it correctly. It does not explicitly state when to prefer it over pcb_replicate_layout or pcb_place_via_array, so the alternative-selection guidance is only implied.

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