cst_pcb_list_stackup_templates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool as listing templates without side effects, but it does not mention prerequisites, performance, or whether the operation is read-only. The description is adequate for a simple retrieval but lacks deeper transparency.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the core purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every sentence earns its place.

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 description mentions that returned data includes complete layer definitions and can be used with another tool, but with no output schema, it lacks details on the structure of the returned data. This is sufficient for a simple listing but could be more complete.

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 100% coverage for the single parameter 'filter', but the description adds value by providing concrete examples ('4-layer', 'Rogers', 'RF') and stating case-insensitivity, which aids correct invocation.

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 it lists predefined PCB stackup templates with complete layer definitions and specifies the types (standard 2/4/6-layer FR-4 and RF-grade Rogers). It also mentions that the returned data can be used directly with cst_pcb_create_stackup, distinguishing it from other tools.

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 explicitly tells the agent to use the returned layer data with cst_pcb_create_stackup, providing clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, which is a minor gap.

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