pcb_analyze_solder_paste

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only repeats the tool's name ('Analyze solder paste stencil design') without describing what the analysis entails, what inputs are required, what outputs are produced, or any side effects. There is no added behavioral context.

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 extremely brief, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The single sentence is nearly a tautology and does not add substantive information. It does not front-load any useful details beyond what the name already implies.

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 (3 required), no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not explain what analysis is performed, how the inputs are used, what results the user can expect, or any assumptions. It is wholly inadequate for a tool with this 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description gives no explanation of the parameters (pad_width_mm, pad_length_mm, pitch_mm, stencil_thickness_mm). While the parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description fails to clarify units, relationships, or how they should be provided, leaving the user without additional meaning beyond the schema.

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 the specific verb 'Analyze' with the resource 'solder paste stencil design', clearly indicating the tool's domain. While 'analyze' is generic, the resource is specific enough to distinguish it from many sibling tools. However, it does not detail the type of analysis or output, so it lacks full differentiation.

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 alternatives, no prerequisites, and no context for why a user would choose it. The description only states what it does, not when or how to apply it.

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