pcb_align_footprints

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

With no annotations present, the description fully owns behavioral disclosure. It only states that footprints are 'arranged,' but does not disclose that the tool moves footprints, modifies the board, or what happens with missing refs or mixed-layer footprints. The side effects are not elaborated.

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 single sentence is concise and front-loaded, but it is under-specified for a tool with four parameters and a destructive/mutating behavior. While there is no wasted text, the description is too terse to be appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 tool modifies footprints and has four parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not mention board-open requirements, how alignment is determined (e.g., based on current positions or refs), or the effect of spacing_mm and allow_open_board. The presence of an output schema does not relieve the need for usage context.

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 0% description coverage for parameters, and the tool description does not mention any parameter by name or explain what axis, refs, spacing_mm, or allow_open_board control. The description provides no meaning beyond the schema's parameter titles.

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 function: arranging selected footprints into a straight row or column. This explicitly distinguishes it from siblings like pcb_move_footprint that move individual footprints. The verb 'arrange' and the resource 'selected footprints' are specific.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pcb_auto_place_by_schematic or pcb_group_by_function. There is no mention of prerequisites or when this should be preferred over other placement tools.

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