pcb_quality_gate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds the notion of 'physically clean' but does not explain what criteria are evaluated, what the output represents, or any side effects (though read-only implies none). It adds minimal context beyond the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's core purpose without unnecessary words. It earns its place and is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter gate.

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?

With an output schema present and no parameters, the description is reasonably complete, but the term 'physically clean' is vague and not elaborated. Among many similar quality gates, the agent may not fully understand what specific checks are performed or how to interpret the result.

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 no parameters, so the schema and description are trivially consistent. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds nothing that conflicts or undermines this.

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 tool evaluates whether the PCB is 'physically clean enough to proceed,' using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling quality gates like pcb_placement_quality_gate or manufacturing_quality_gate, so it lacks explicit differentiation.

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 given on when to use this tool as opposed to other quality gates or related checks. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent without context on when this check is appropriate.

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