pcb_set_review_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It names the action ('Set design review context') but does not mention side effects such as overwriting previous context, persistence, or whether this is a required prerequisite (only says 'call before', not 'required'). The lack of state-change details is a gap for a mutation tool.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by a clear usage directive. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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 role as a context setter with a rich schema (7 params, 100% coverage, examples for thermal_limits and operating_conditions), the description is complete enough. It tells when to call it and what kind of data to provide. The only missing element is any detail about return behavior or state consequences, but since it's a setup command and there's no output schema, this is a minor gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema sufficiently documents all 7 parameters with individual descriptions. The description's grouping into categories (requirements, standards, etc.) adds slight interpretive value but does not meaningfully exceed what the schema already provides. 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 verb 'Set' and resource 'design review context' make the purpose clear. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being the context-setup step for reviews, and the mention of 'requirements, standards, known issues, operating conditions' gives a concrete overview. Not a perfect 5 because it omits some parameter categories (thermal_limits, impedance_targets) from the summary.

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?

Explicitly states 'Call before pcb_run_design_review', providing clear temporal guidance in the workflow. Does not discuss when not to use it or alternatives, but as a dedicated setup tool that's acceptable. The instruction is valuable because it names the exact dependent tool in the sibling list.

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