pcb_auto_place_by_schematic

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

With empty annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'deterministic heuristics' but does not state whether existing placement is overwritten, whether a board must be open, or how missing footprints are handled. This leaves significant side-effect uncertainty.

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, direct sentence with no filler or redundancy. It efficiently communicates the core purpose and key differentiator in minimal words.

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?

For a tool with 8 parameters, empty annotations, and significant side-effect potential, this one-line description is insufficient. It omits parameter meanings, preconditions, and behavioral consequences, even though an output schema exists.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the 8 parameters such as grid_mm, strategy, sync_missing, or allow_open_board. The phrase 'deterministic heuristics' adds no parameter-level meaning.

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 identifies the action (place), the resource (PCB footprints), the source (current schematic), and the method (deterministic heuristics). It distinguishes this tool from sibling auto-placement approaches like pcb_auto_place_force_directed.

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 use when a schematic is loaded and footprints need automatic placement, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over force-directed placement or manual placement. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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