pcb_get_layer_stackup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; 'Get' plus the return listing makes clear this is a non-mutating read of stackup data. It stops short of stating which board is read (active document?), whether a PCB must be open, or whether layers include non-copper/mixed-plane entries, all of which matter for a board-scoped getter.

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 and generally tight, but the opening paragraph ('Returns copper layers with thickness, dielectric type/height/constant, and board name') is restated almost verbatim in the following 'Returns:' block. Since an output schema already exists, that block is largely duplicated information taking up half the description.

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 getter with an output schema, the definition covers what the agent needs to decide to call it. The remaining gap is operational context: which document/board the stackup is read from, which the description never states.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter semantics.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Get the full PCB layer stackup information' tells an agent exactly what is retrieved, and the field list (copper thickness, dielectric type/height/constant, board name) confirms scope. It does not differentiate against adjacent siblings such as pcb_export_stackup_csv, pcb_get_layer_display, or pcb_get_mech_layer_names, so an agent cannot resolve the choice from the description alone.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is present. The most likely confusion, pcb_get_layer_stackup vs pcb_export_stackup_csv, is never addressed, and no prerequisite (open PCB document, active board) is stated.

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