dfm_run_manufacturer_check

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

There are no annotations, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states the action but does not disclose whether the review modifies the design, requires prior setup, or what the output contains. The lack of any side-effect or prerequisite details leaves the agent under-informed.

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, focused sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the action and includes the key qualifier about the profile.

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 with no parameters and an output schema exists, so return values don't need explanation. However, the description does not mention that a profile must be loaded beforehand, or how this relates to other DFM workflow steps, leaving some contextual gaps for a complex tool domain.

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 tool accepts zero parameters, so the schema is complete. The description adds context about the 'active bundled profile' which is useful, but no parameter explanations are needed. Baseline for zero params is 4.

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 runs a manufacturer-aware DFM review, using a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('manufacturer-aware DFM review'). It distinguishes itself from generic design checks by referencing the active bundled profile, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like check_design_for_manufacture.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies that a bundled profile must already be active, but does not state this as a prerequisite or mention related tools such as dfm_load_manufacturer_profile.

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