auto_place_decoupling_cap

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

The description discloses the pin mapping (pin 1 to power_net, pin 2 to ground_net) and the method (stub wires + labels). It also notes that project_path is for sub-sheet instance tracking. Annotations are all false and offer no conflict; the description adds behavioral context beyond them.

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 structured with a clear purpose statement followed by an Args list. It is dense but not verbose, with each line adding necessary information.

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 the complexity (11 parameters) and empty schema descriptions, the description covers the tool's behavior, all parameters, examples, and optional defaults. Output schema exists, so return value documentation is not needed.

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 has no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description's Args section explains each parameter with examples (e.g., lib_id: 'C', reference: 'C5') and clarifies optional paths. This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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+resource: 'Place a decoupling capacitor and wire it to power/ground nets.' It clearly distinguishes from generic placement tools like place_component by specifying the decoupling cap and the wiring behavior.

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 clearly implies when to use it: when a decoupling capacitor needs to be placed and connected to power/ground. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as when a generic placement is needed.

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