review_schematic

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing the result taxonomy (PASS/WARN/FAIL/INFO/UNVERIFIED) and that each check carries its evidence, which shapes how the agent should interpret the response.

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 verb and resource, followed by the scope list and result semantics. The check list is dense but every item earns its place; minimal waste.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adequately establishes scope and result interpretation; only the sibling routing (vs run_erc/review_board) is missing.

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?

With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents schematic_path (format, absolute/relative, any-sheet fallback to root). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (review) and resource (schematic), then enumerates the concrete dimensions checked (ERC, footprints, values, annotation, power nets, decoupling, BOM, SPICE). This clearly distinguishes it from review_board and review_project by resource, though it never explicitly names those siblings.

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 enumeration of checks implies a comprehensive review, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as run_erc (ERC only) or sch_netlist. An agent must infer the tool's scope and relationship to siblings entirely from the name and check list.

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