Plecs Layout Check

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint, so the description carries the real burden and does: it names the data sources (getCircuitBitmap bounding boxes plus Position/Points from the .plecs text), discloses severity per diagnostic code, and states that a crossing is cosmetic because PLECS connects only through explicit connections. That last point is exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent needs to interpret findings without over-reporting.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose, then supporting detail in decreasing order of importance (mechanism, codes, caveat, scope). Dense but every sentence carries information; the backticked identifiers add scannability rather than noise.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers prerequisites, data provenance, and scope limits. The remaining gap is include_wires' effect on which diagnostics run, which an agent would have to guess.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains margin well ('absorbs the ~2 unit rounding between schematic coordinates and rendered pixels') and model_name is implied by 'a model that is open in PLECS', but include_wires is never mentioned even though it plainly gates the LAYOUT-002/003 wire checks. Partial compensation only.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Check schematic geometry of a model that is open in PLECS', and enumerates the three concrete findings (LAYOUT-001/002/003), which clearly separates it from general validation siblings like plecs_check or plecs_validate. It never names those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

'a model that is open in PLECS' and 'Top-level schematic only' imply the precondition and scope, but there is no explicit statement of when to reach for this versus plecs_validate/plecs_check, and no exclusions. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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