pcb_cross_reference_schematic

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses the tool's analysis behavior (finding missing/extra components, value mismatches, unrouted nets) and the requirement for both schematic and layout data. It does not describe potential side effects or return format, but for a read-only cross-reference tool, the behavioral disclosure is adequate and exceeds a baseline 3.

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 concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by the key output categories and a prerequisite. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and the lack of an output schema, the description provides a complete enough overview: it states the action, the specific discrepancy types it finds, and the data prerequisite. It does not detail the return structure, but that is not required when no output schema exists and the description already lists the output categories.

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 only parameter, session_id, is already fully described in the schema as 'Session ID with both schematic and layout data loaded.' The description's mention of requiring both datasets mirrors the schema without adding new semantic detail. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 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 the specific verb 'Cross-reference' and identifies the resource (schematic components/nets against layout), along with the concrete outputs (missing components, extra components, value mismatches, unrouted nets). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'pcb_three_way_cross_reference', which may perform a similar but broader comparison, so it falls short of a full 5.

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 clearly states the necessary precondition: 'Requires both schematic and layout data in the session.' This provides practical context for when to use the tool. It does not, however, explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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