pcb_suggest_next_actions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a stateful lifecycle (populated/drained) and the dependency on pcb_run_design_review and pcb_attach_external_result. This is useful beyond the static schema, and there is no contradiction with any annotation (none provided).

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the lifecycle in the second sentence. Every word adds value with no redundancy or 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?

The description adequately explains the tool's purpose, its place in the workflow, and its integration with related tools. It lacks explicit detail about return structure or edge-case behavior, but given the rich schema and the tool's simple queue-like nature, it is sufficiently complete.

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 no parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema already provides; it focuses on the tool's role rather than param semantics. This is acceptable given the schema fully documents each parameter.

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 returns a prioritised list of sibling-MCP calls to execute, with specific categories (openEMS / NEC2 / emc-regulations / drawio). This distinguishes it from the many analysis tools by framing it as an action-queue provider, not a domain calculator.

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 clear workflow context: it is populated by pcb_run_design_review, drained as the agent calls suggested tools, and results are fed back via pcb_attach_external_result. This implies when to call it (after a design review) and how it fits into the overall sequence, though it doesn't explicitly list alternative tools or exclusion cases.

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