pcb_run_design_review

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the analysis pipeline (classification, analyzer selection, cross-correlation, structured output), which is useful. However, it does not mention potential side effects, prerequisites beyond the session_id (which is in the schema), runtime expectations, or how the 'structured results' are delivered.

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 immediately states the action and then efficiently enumerates the workflow. Every phrase adds value, with no redundant or vague 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?

For a complex orchestrator tool with no output schema, the description provides a good high-level overview of the workflow and clearly ties to the session_id input. However, it leaves unspecified what the 'structured results' contain, how they are formatted, or how the agent should interpret or act on them, which is a notable gap for such a broad tool.

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 has 100% coverage for the single session_id parameter, and its description 'Session ID from pcb_parse_layout' is clear. The tool description adds no parameter-specific detail, but given the high schema coverage, 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 clearly states a specific action ('Run full automated multi-domain design review') and outlines the multi-step process: classify, select analyzers, run analysis, cross-correlate, and generate results. This distinguishes it from the many single-domain analyzer siblings and from other review-related tools that focus on specific aspects.

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 usage for a comprehensive multi-domain review but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like pcb_start_professional_review or individual analyzers. No exclusion criteria or direct comparison to sibling tools is provided.

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