pcb_placement_quality_report

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It hints at structured output for 'capable MCP clients' but does not explain whether the tool performs analysis, requires a loaded board, or has any side effects. The read-only nature is only implied by the word 'report'.

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 filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool, and the key information (returning a report) is front-loaded.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks contextual completeness. It does not specify what the placement-quality report contains, how it relates to sibling quality-gate or scoring tools, or when it should be invoked. The qualifier 'for capable MCP clients' adds ambiguity rather than clarity.

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, and the schema coverage is 100%. As per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, the description does not need to elaborate on parameters; the schema already exhaustively defines the input.

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 'Return a structured placement-quality report' clearly identifies a verb and resource, indicating the tool produces a report on placement quality. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like pcb_placement_quality_gate or pcb_score_placement, so it falls short of the highest rating.

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. No context, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer use cases from the tool name alone.

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