pcb_group_by_function

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

No annotations exist, and the description only says 'cluster existing footprints' without explaining side effects, whether it physically moves footprints, whether it modifies the board, or what the output represents. It doesn't disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic action, leaving uncertainty about mutations or state changes.

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 extremely concise, using a single well-formed sentence with no redundant words. However, the brevity leaves it under-specified for the complexity of the tool.

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 has 7 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema not shown, the one-sentence description is insufficient. It does not cover placement semantics, spacing, board handling, or the meaning of the grouped output, making it inadequate for complex usage.

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 seven parameters. The phrase 'named functional groups' hints at the 'groups' parameter but provides no help for understanding 'grid_mm', 'origin_x_mm', 'origin_y_mm', 'item_spacing_mm', 'allow_open_board', or 'group_spacing_mm'.

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 action ('Cluster') and the resource ('existing footprints') and the outcome ('named functional groups'). It distinguishes this tool from other PCB placement and grouping tools by focusing on grouping by function, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with any sibling.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, so an agent has no basis for selecting it over other pcb_* tools.

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