Inspect PCB 3D models and vertical clearance

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

Annotations already establish this is a non-destructive, local, read-only inspection, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing the report contents - substrate thickness, top/bottom max heights, enclosure fit status, criticality-ranked missing models, and collision detection - which tells the agent what evidence it will get back. It does not mention performance cost or the need for models to exist, keeping it from a 5.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb first and the payloads listed in descending specificity; no filler or restated title. It is dense but every clause maps to a real output category, though the nested parenthetical list makes it slightly hard 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does name the main result categories, which is adequate for a read-only analysis tool. However, it omits the result shape, how fit/tight/exceeded statuses are reported, and what happens when interference checking is disabled, leaving gaps an agent would want closed.

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 60%, with maxHeightMm, checkInterference and enclosureHeightMm already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the concepts ('vertical board envelope', 'total enclosure clearance', 'spatial interference collisions'), which helps map parameters to intent, but adds no format, units or default behaviour beyond what the schema states, and says nothing about target/timeoutMs.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Inspects 3D models') and then enumerates the concrete artifacts produced: board envelope, missing STEP/OBJ models ranked by criticality, and spatial interference collisions. That distinguishes it reasonably well from easyeda_get_pcb_3d_view and easyeda_export_3d_model, though those siblings are never named explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. that 3D models must be assigned), and no mention of when to prefer this over easyeda_get_pcb_3d_view or easyeda_export_3d_model. The agent must infer the selection rule from the name and sibling set.

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