check_design_for_manufacture

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-mutating operation. The description adds context about the data source ('available DRC data') and the lightweight nature, but does not disclose details like what happens if DRC data is unavailable or what the output structure contains.

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 a single concise sentence that is well front-loaded with the action. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional boolean parameter), and an output schema exists, so return values are covered elsewhere. However, the description omits any explanation of the 'jlcpcb' parameter and does not clarify the relationship to full DFM checks, leaving some gaps for a low-complexity tool.

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 input schema has one parameter 'jlcpcb' with no description, and the tool description does not explain it either. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, but it offers no insight into what the parameter controls or how it affects the check.

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 action ('Run'), resource ('DFM check'), and key distinguishing characteristics ('lightweight', 'using available DRC data'). This differentiates it from heavier DFM tools like dfm_run_manufacturer_check.

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 a quick, lightweight check using DRC data, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as dfm_run_manufacturer_check or run_drc. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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