Check every footprint already on the board

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which cover safety. The description adds specific behavioral context by stating what validation is performed (against keep-out zones and board edge), which is not already in the annotations. It doesn't contradict the annotations and provides useful domain-specific behavior beyond the structured fields.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear one-sentence purpose followed by a simple Args section. No unnecessary words, and the content is front-loaded with the main action. It earns every sentence.

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 tool with one optional parameter, read-only annotations, and an existing output schema, the description covers essential usage. The main purpose is clear, and the parameter is fully documented. A minor gap is the lack of distinction from the sibling check_placement, which could cause confusion, but overall the description is adequate.

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 input schema has one parameter, pcb_path, with a type and default but no description (0% coverage). The description fully compensates by explaining it as 'Path to .kicad_pcb file. Optional; omit to use the configured default.' This provides complete parameter meaning that the schema lacks.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Validate all footprint placements against keep-out zones and board edge.' This is a specific verb ('validate') with a specific resource ('footprint placements') and scope ('keep-out zones and board edge'). It effectively distinguishes itself from broader tools like run_drc by focusing on placement validation, although it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling check_placement.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention 'use instead of check_placement or run_drc' or indicate prerequisites like 'before running DRC.' The purpose implies usage for placement validation, but no contextual or alternative-based guidance is given.

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