pcb_parse_step

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses what data is extracted and that a session_id is returned, but it does not mention whether this is a state-changing operation (e.g., creating/updating a session), potential side effects, or error conditions. The behavioral traits are partially surfaced but not fully transparent.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence adds value: the first states the purpose, the second lists outputs and return value. No wasted words.

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 parsing tool with no output schema, the description explains the key deliverables (outline, bounding boxes, heights, session_id). It lacks details on file format nuances, size limits, or error handling, but that is acceptable given the tool's niche role and rich sibling 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and both parameters have clear descriptions (file_path, session_id). The description adds no extra parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema already provides. It reinforces the output (session_id) but not enough to exceed the baseline.

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 parses STEP files for 3D mechanical review, with a specific verb 'Parse' and resource '.step/.stp' file. It enumerates concrete outputs (board outline, component bounding boxes, heights) and return value (session_id), distinguishing it from sibling analysis and rendering tools.

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 phrase 'for 3D mechanical review' gives clear context for when to use this tool, and the schema for session_id indicates merging into an existing session. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the unique purpose (STEP parsing) is sufficiently differentiated from the many siblings.

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