pcb_generate_html_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the output characteristics (interactive, self-contained, collapsible sections, severity filtering, embedded images, print-friendly) and the required precondition. It does not mention side effects or error handling, but overall conveys key behavior.

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 front-loads the primary purpose and lists relevant features. Every phrase adds value without unnecessary padding.

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 a tool with 4 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context about the output format and a critical dependency. It could be more complete by explicitly naming sibling alternatives, but overall it's solid.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds general context about the output but does not elaborate on individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states the tool's function: generating an interactive, self-contained HTML design review report with specific features (collapsible sections, severity filtering, embedded images, print-friendly styles). This distinguishes it from sibling report generators by specifying format and capabilities.

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 provides a clear prerequisite ('Must run pcb_run_design_review first'), indicating when to use this tool. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for typical usage.

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