pcb_check_creepage_clearance

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a key behavioral trait ('heuristic'), implying the review is an estimate rather than a rigorous compliance check. However, it doesn't state whether the tool is read-only, generates a report, modifies the board, or how results are returned, leaving important behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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, clear sentence that front-loads the verb and immediately conveys the purpose. It is appropriately sized for a tool with simple inputs, though it lacks enough detail to be fully informative.

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 three parameters, missing annotations, and no parameter documentation, the description is incomplete. It gives a general sense of the tool's purpose but fails to explain which design aspects are checked, how parameters influence the review, or what the output schema contains, making it only partially useful for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters. It fails to define voltage_v (units, range), material_group (what the values mean, e.g., IEC grouping), or pollution_degree (environment classification), all critical to using the tool correctly.

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 states a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('heuristic creepage clearance review'), which clearly identifies the tool's function. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like emc_check_via_stitching and run_drc, though it doesn't explicitly mention how it differs from those.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, when not to use it, or what prerequisites or context are needed. The description gives no indication of design stage, standards, or expected board state, offering no decision-making support.

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