pcb_answer_review_questions

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions supplying context for design review but does not disclose whether this modifies session state, whether it overwrites prior answers, or any side effects. For a tool that writes data, this is insufficient.

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?

Two tight sentences. The first states the action, the second gives the workflow context. No redundant words, front-loaded with purpose.

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 provides workflow context and the schema is complete, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description lacks crucial behavioral details (side effects, idempotency, prerequisites). For a simple tool with well-documented parameters, it is minimally complete but not fully.

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 100% with clear descriptions for both session_id and answers. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, but the schema already suffices, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Provide answers') and clear resource ('review questions' identified by pcb_get_review_questions). It distinguishes from sibling tools like pcb_run_design_review and pcb_get_review_questions by explicitly positioning itself as the pre-review step.

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?

States explicitly to call 'before running design review' to supply missing context, and references the source of questions. It provides clear timing context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives beyond the implied workflow.

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