quality_fai_inspect

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly states that the tool uploads inputs, performs cross-referencing, and flags components. It also warns that vision-based checks require manual confirmation, alerting the agent to the need for human oversight. However, it does not describe the output format (e.g., structure of flagged components) or potential edge cases (e.g., missing photos, invalid BOM). The 'has output schema' context suggests output details exist but are not covered here.

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 concise: three sentences plus an IMPORTANT note. It starts with a clear purpose, then lists actions, and ends with critical operator guidance. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy or fluff. The structure is logical and easy to scan.

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 required parameters, no enums, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (though not detailed in the description), the description adequately covers the input requirements and expected outcome (flagged components needing review). It lacks a brief explanation of what the output looks like, but for a tool focused on human-in-the-loop inspection, the current level 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters (board_photos as array of JPEG/PNG paths, bom_path as CSV/JSON). The description restates these requirements ('Uploads assembled board photos and BOM file') but adds no new semantic details beyond what the schema already provides. Therefore, it meets the baseline without adding extra value.

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 defines the tool as performing First Article Inspection, verifying assembled board against BOM. It specifies the action (upload photos and BOM, cross-reference components) and the inspection criteria (presence, polarity, orientation, value). This distinguishes it from other quality tools like assembly_aoi_inspect or quality_iqc_inspect by focusing on the first article verification step.

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 post-use guidance by emphasizing manual review of flagged components and operator confirmation. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus similar siblings (e.g., assembly_aoi_inspect for automated optical inspection) or when not to use it (e.g., if no BOM available). The context of 'Station 3' implies a workflow but is not explicit about prerequisites.

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