assembly_aoi_inspect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states the server compares placement quality and flags defects, and includes a warning to manually verify. This gives adequate insight into the tool's behavior and limitations. No contradictions.

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 purpose, then action, then important warning. No unnecessary words or redundancy. Each sentence earns its place.

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 tool has an output schema, so return values need not be described. Parameters are fully covered. The description adds the critical warning about verification. For a manufacturing inspection tool, this is sufficient.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so parameters are already well-documented. The description adds minor context (e.g., 'golden reference image' and 'JPEG/PNG'), but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 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 the tool is for automated optical inspection (Station 4), explains it uploads board photos and compares placement quality to flag defects. It distinguishes from sibling tools like assembly_functional_test or quality_fai_inspect by naming the specific station and purpose.

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 explains to upload board photos and an optional reference image, and explicitly instructs users to review the defect report and manually verify flagged items. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other inspection tools (e.g., xray_analyze), which would make it clearer.

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