add_thermal_vias

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

Annotations are all false (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose auto-selection and auto-detection behaviors, but it does not explicitly state that the PCB file is modified or saved, nor does it mention any side effects like overwriting existing vias or requiring an existing footprint. This is moderately transparent but has gaps for a mutation tool.

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 a well-structured docstring with a one-line summary followed by a concise parameter list. Every line adds value—there is no fluff or repetition. The most important phrase ('Add a grid of thermal vias under a footprint pad') is front-loaded.

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?

Given 9 parameters (1 required), the description covers all of them with sufficient detail. It also explains conditional behavior (auto-selection, auto-detection, optional path). Since an output schema exists, return values need not be described. The description is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description is the sole source of parameter meaning. It explains every parameter with examples and defaults (e.g., 'Pad number to center vias on. If empty, auto-selects largest SMD pad.'). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 starts with a specific verb+resource: 'Add a grid of thermal vias under a footprint pad.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_via (which adds a single via) and place_footprint. The purpose is unambiguous and directly tied to the tool's name.

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 provides clear context: 'under a footprint pad' and describes specific behaviors like auto-selecting the largest SMD pad and auto-detecting the net. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., add_via for individual vias) or any exclusions. Since the context is clear but alternatives are not discussed, a 4 is appropriate.

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