quality_iqc_inspect

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the server validates multiple checks (label readability, date code, MPN, MSL level) and warns that rejected components must not enter production. This gives reasonable behavioral context for a read-heavy inspection tool, though it doesn't specify if the tool is read-only or if it mutates state.

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 relatively concise with two paragraphs and a bolded note. It front-loads the purpose ('Station 1: Incoming quality control inspection') and efficiently lists actions. The important note adds necessary safety information without bloating the 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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 params, multiple checks, output schema exists), the description covers the process and validation steps adequately. It explains what happens on the server and the critical outcome (rejection). With output schema present, omitting return value details is acceptable. However, it could briefly mention how results are returned.

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 all 4 parameters. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining why each parameter is used: photos and PO reference data are uploaded, date code freshness is checked (linking to expected_date_code), and MPN is verified. This contextualizes the parameters within the inspection process.

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 is 'Station 1: Incoming quality control inspection' and lists specific actions: uploads photos and PO data, validates label readability, date code, MPN, MSL level. This distinguishes it from sibling quality tools (e.g., quality_fai_inspect for final inspection) by specifying the incoming stage and the resource (component reels/packaging).

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 use for incoming inspection as 'Station 1' but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., quality_fai_inspect, quality_compliance_check). There is no 'do not use' or 'use when' directive, and alternatives are not mentioned.

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