assembly_functional_test

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses that the tool uploads data ('Uploads test results CSV and criteria JSON'), validates units, and calculates yield. It also warns to review yield before lot disposition. However, it does not clarify if the upload is destructive, whether authorization is required, or what happens on the server side beyond validation.

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?

The description is four sentences, starting with the core purpose and station identifier. Every sentence adds unique information: purpose, inputs, server action, and a critical warning. No redundant or vague language.

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?

For a tool with two parameters and an existing output schema, the description adequately covers inputs, the validation process, and a post-use recommendation. It lacks mention of error handling or behavior when criteria is null (allowed by schema), but given the output schema likely explains return values, this is acceptable.

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter having a description. The description adds meaningful context: it explains that criteria JSON defines pass/fail specs for each unit and that the server validates against these specs to calculate yield. This goes beyond the schema's simple type/example by linking parameters to the tool's functional behavior.

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's purpose: 'Validate functional test results against pass/fail criteria' and specifies it is Station 5 in a process. It details the inputs (CSV and JSON) and output (yield calculation). This distinguishes it from sibling assembly tools like assembly_aoi_inspect or assembly_reflow_profile, which have different test stages.

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 implicitly indicates usage when functional test results are available, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like assembly_aoi_inspect or assembly_readiness_check. There is no guidance on when not to use it or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling names.

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