pcb_start_professional_review

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses that the tool classifies files, selects market-specific packs, and returns a binding playbook to follow. It does not mention side effects or state changes, but for an entry-point tool this is acceptable and arguably complete. It also references external docs for further detail.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with 'ENTRY POINT', and every sentence adds value: purpose, usage order, and outcome. The docs reference is a useful pointer without clutter. Ideal conciseness.

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?

With no output schema, the description clearly states what is returned (the P0-P8 playbook) and what processing happens. For a start tool, this is complete: it describes inputs, behavior, and return value. The referenced docs fill any residual need for playbook details.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context by relating input files and market selection to the tool's behavior, but it does not add new parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., enums, defaults).

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 this tool is the entry point for a design review, using the specific verb 'Call this FIRST' and listing concrete actions: classifies input files, selects question packs and standards, and returns the 8-pass playbook. This strongly distinguishes it from the sibling analyzer/parser 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?

Explicitly instructs to 'Call this FIRST, before any parser or analyzer', providing unambiguous when-to-use guidance. The description also defines the tool's scope (entry point for the full review workflow), making it clear that all other tools are downstream alternatives.

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