pcb_analyze_placement

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

With no annotations, the description alone should disclose behavior such as whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, and any requirements. It only says it analyzes placement, leaving the agent uninformed about side effects or result format.

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 single concise sentence that is not redundant. However, it under-specifies the tool's capabilities, so brevity comes at the cost of usefulness.

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 tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not provide enough context about expected inputs, output, or typical usage scenarios, making it incomplete for an AI agent to invoke correctly.

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 explain the parameters, but it mentions none of them. The parameter names give some hints, but their roles in the analysis and units are not clarified.

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 uses 'Analyze' as a verb and identifies the resource as 'component placement', with the goal of 'manufacturability'. However, it doesn't specify what aspects of placement are analyzed (e.g., spacing, orientation) or what output is produced, making it indistinguishable from some sibling analysis 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus similar tools like pcb_analyze_assembly or pcb_analyze_tolerance. No context or exclusions are provided.

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