dfm_estimate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool uploads a design file to an external API and produces a complexity score and pricing estimate. It lists specific features analyzed (HDI, blind/buried vias). However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., file upload time) or authentication needs, which would be helpful for an agent.

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 three sentences: it states the purpose, explains the process, and details the analysis. It is front-loaded with the main action and provides necessary context without extraneous words. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (2 parameters, output schema exists), the description adequately covers the input and the analysis performed. It does not detail output format, but since an output schema is present, that is acceptable. Minor gaps: no mention of errors or prerequisites, but overall 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the two parameters. It mentions the file types (Gerber ZIP, .kicad_pcb) which align with the schema, but no extra details.

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: analyzing design file complexity and obtaining DFM review pricing. It specifies the verb 'analyze' and the resource 'design file', and mentions concrete analysis features (layer count, component density, etc.). This distinguishes it from siblings like estimate_cost, which likely handles different costing.

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 implies when to use the tool (when DFM review pricing is needed) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. No comparisons to sibling tools like dfm_submit or estimate_cost are provided, leaving the agent to infer the context.

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