pcb_get_standards_coverage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the tool returns and explicitly lists the report contents, including identifying stubs and unimplemented standards. It also frames the output as gaps for human review. While it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, 'Return' and 'surfaces' strongly imply a non-mutating operation.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence packs specific content details, and the second adds practical purpose. The verb and resource are front-loaded, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 single-parameter getter with no output schema, the description adequately explains what the report contains (analyzers run, required, stub/unimplemented standards) and why to use it (resolve gaps before sign-off). It could mention output format or error behavior, but those are not necessary for basic usage.

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 has one parameter, session_id, described as 'Session id.' The description adds only 'for the session,' which minimally reinforces the role of the parameter. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3; the description does not meaningfully compensate for the thin schema description.

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 verb 'Return' and the specific resource 'per-standard coverage report for the session,' then enumerates the report's contents (which analyzers ran, which are required, which standards are stub/unimplemented). This distinguishes it from other pcb_get_* tools, which address different resources like design rules or drill tables.

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 context by stating that the tool 'surfaces gaps the human reviewer should resolve before final sign-off,' implying when in the review workflow it should be used. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the intended usage is clear.

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