pcb_score_placement

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

The description indicates the tool analyzes and explains placement issues, which is useful behavioral context. However, with no annotations to indicate read-only status or side effects, the description does not explicitly state whether the tool modifies the board or only reads it. The mention of explaining failures and warnings is a positive but limited disclosure.

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 sentence that is concise, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no redundant or irrelevant information. It is appropriately sized for a parameterless 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?

For a parameterless tool with an output schema, the description sufficiently conveys the tool's purpose and the nature of its output. It lacks explicit guidance on how it differs from the similar placement quality gate/report siblings, which keeps it from being a perfect 5, but it is otherwise complete for basic use.

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 explain parameter usage. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter information is necessary and the schema already confirms there are no inputs.

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 uses a specific verb ('Score') with a clear resource ('PCB placement quality') and adds the distinctive detail of explaining both hard failures and softer warnings. This differentiates it from siblings like pcb_placement_quality_gate and pcb_placement_quality_report, which likely focus on pass/fail or reporting.

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 implies the tool is used when a scored assessment of placement quality with explanations is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over sibling tools such as pcb_placement_quality_gate or pcb_placement_quality_report. No alternative tools or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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