pcb_place_radial_dimension

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool places an object, gives units in mils, states the default layer, and mentions a confirming return dictionary, but it does not describe side effects, whether existing dimensions are affected, permission or layer constraints, or reversibility.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action, followed by a structured Args section and a brief Returns note. The Returns sentence is somewhat redundant because an output schema exists, but there is little waste overall.

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?

The output schema removes the need to explain return values in detail, and parameter semantics are covered. However, for a PCB placement tool with several dimension-related siblings, the description lacks routing guidance and behavioral context that an agent would need to select and invoke it confidently in the right situations.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does document all four parameters: center_x, center_y, radius, and layer. It adds meaningful semantics by specifying units in mils and the default layer value, though it does not enumerate valid layer names or coordinate origin details.

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 description states a specific verb and resource: placing a radial dimension around a center point with a given radius. It is clear what the tool creates, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from related siblings such as pcb_place_dimension or pcb_place_angular_dimension.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of the standard or angular dimension tools, nor any prerequisites such as active document, board context, or layer requirements. The agent must infer appropriate usage entirely.

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