quality_xray_analyze

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that the tool uploads images and analyzes them per IPC standards. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., image storage), authentication needs, or rate limits. The behavioral traits are partially transparent but could be more comprehensive.

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 with three sentences plus an important note. It front-loads the core purpose and adds necessary details without redundancy.

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 presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers input details and analysis scope. It mentions the defect report and void percentages as outputs, which is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's functionality.

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?

The schema already describes the parameter xray_images as 'List of paths to X-ray images (JPEG/PNG)' with 100% coverage. The description adds context about analyzing for solder joint defects but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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: X-ray solder joint analysis for BGA/QFN packages, including specific defects and standards. It is distinct from sibling quality tools like quality_compliance_check or quality_fai_inspect.

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 gives clear guidance on using the tool for X-ray analysis and important post-analysis actions (review defect report, joints exceeding 25% void require rework). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is sufficient for correct usage.

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