pcb_generate_design_review_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It describes output sections but omits important behaviors like the cross-MCP gate for pending external actions, the PRELIMINARY stamping mechanism, or that run_analysis can trigger pcb_run_design_review. These are only in the parameter schema, not the description. The gate is a critical behavioral trait for an agent to understand.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and output format. The second sentence adds valuable detail about document contents without redundancy. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition.

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?

For an 8-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should cover workflow prerequisites and side effects. It does explain what the report contains but omits the gating behavior (cross-MCP pending actions), the possibility of running analysis first, and how output files are handled. The schema covers parameter semantics, but the description misses operational context, making it incomplete but not wholly inadequate.

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%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail; it doesn't explain the meaning of force or run_analysis beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Generate a professional PCB design review report (DOCX and/or HTML) from all analysis results in the current session.' It clearly distinguishes itself by mentioning comprehensive content (executive summary, domain analysis, traceable findings, plots, action items) from sibling report generators like pcb_generate_docx_report or pcb_generate_html_report.

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?

Implies when to use (after analyses in the current session) but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. The description says 'from all analysis results in the current session' which is a clear context, but it never says 'use this instead of pcb_generate_report' or when not to use it. No mention of prerequisites like having run pcb_run_design_review.

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