pcb_get_drill_table

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It lists the output contents but does not state whether the tool is read-only, requires an active session beyond the schema parameter, or has any side effects. This is a gap for a getter tool with no annotations.

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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and lists the key output fields. Every word contributes meaning, 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 simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers the output contents. However, it does not mention how the drill table is obtained (via parsed layout) or the return format, leaving slight room for improvement.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with a description for the only parameter (session_id). The tool description adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema, so 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 a specific verb ('Get') and names the resource ('drill table'), then lists the exact data it returns (sizes, counts, plating types, aspect ratios). This makes the tool's purpose clear and distinguishes it from other getter tools in the sibling list.

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 implies a use case (when you need drill table data) but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like pcb_get_vias or pcb_get_manufacturing_notes. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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