pcb_get_stackup

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide. Annotations include readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description simply says 'Show', which is consistent. However, it does not disclose anything extra such as dependencies on a loaded board or units of measurement, though the output schema likely covers return format.

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 with no redundancies. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter getter, earning high marks for structure and efficiency.

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 simple getter with no parameters and an output schema present, the description is fully sufficient. It conveys the essential purpose without needing to explain return values, as the output schema covers those details.

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 has zero parameters, so the description does not need to compensate for undocumented params. According to the rubric, 0 params earns a baseline of 4. The description adequately supports the lack of parameters.

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 'Show the current stackup' clearly identifies the tool as a getter for the PCB stackup. The verb 'Show' and resource 'current stackup' are specific, and the name pcb_get_stackup directly distinguishes it from siblings like pcb_set_stackup and si_generate_stackup.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The intended use is implied by the name and the presence of pcb_set_stackup as a sibling, but the description does not state when to prefer this over si_generate_stackup or si_synthesize_stackup_for_interfaces.

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