pcb_generate_test_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the tool produces (prioritized tests, setup instructions, failure frequencies, equipment, duration estimates) and that it consumes risk findings. It is clear this is a generation tool, and the description provides useful output details beyond the schema.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and output contents. Every phrase adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 has only one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns by listing the key components of the plan. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's function without requiring additional context.

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 schema covers 100% of the parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond saying the input is 'design review risk findings,' which aligns with the schema but does not enhance it.

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 ('Auto-generate') and resource ('prioritized pre-compliance test plan') with a clear source ('from design review risk findings'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools, as none of the siblings generate test plans.

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 clear context: it is meant to be used after design review risk findings are available. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the workflow is implied.

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