assembly_readiness_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and details the upload action and the specific checks performed (parts parseability, stencil layer presence, position-BOM match). It does not explicitly state side effects or whether outputs are saved, but the checks are well-defined.

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 extremely concise: a header, a blank line, three bullet-like checks, and an important note. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the tool's identity and purpose. No extraneous text.

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 three simple string parameters and an output schema (indicated), the description fully explains the tool's role, inputs, and the checks it performs. It also provides contextual guidance about its place in the process, making it complete for the given complexity.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description rephrases the three parameters (BOM, gerber ZIP, position CSV) but adds no new detail beyond the schema's param descriptions. It provides context on why they are used but no extra semantic depth for individual parameters.

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 it's a pre-assembly readiness checklist that uploads three file types and performs specific server checks. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly positioning itself as 'Station 1' and the step before 'feeder setup', making its role and scope unambiguous.

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 context: it is the first station, to be used before feeder setup. The note 'Review the checklist before proceeding to feeder setup' reinforces this order. However, it does not explicitly mention scenarios where this tool should not be used or list alternatives.

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