pcb_placement_quality_gate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying the exact criteria evaluated (overlap-free and inside board frame), which is not disclosed in annotations. It does not describe the return format, but the output schema likely covers that.

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 that clearly states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word contributes to meaning. No redundancy or filler.

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, parameterless quality gate, the description fully explains what the tool checks. Combined with the output schema, the agent has complete information to select and invoke the tool correctly. No gaps remain.

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?

With zero parameters, there is no schema coverage issue. The description naturally adds no parameter details, but this is appropriate as no parameters exist. The baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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 'Evaluate whether footprint placement is overlap-free and inside the board frame' uses a specific verb ('Evaluate') and resource ('footprint placement') with clear success criteria. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pcb_placement_quality_report or pcb_score_placement by focusing on a binary pass/fail quality gate.

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 does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage as a placement quality check, but there is no explicit guidance about when to invoke it (e.g., before export) or when to prefer sibling tools like pcb_placement_quality_report for detailed diagnostics.

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