project_infer_design_spec

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It explicitly discloses a key behavioral trait: the tool does not write to disk, implying a non-destructive, in-memory operation. While it does not explicitly state read-only status, the description plus the presence of an output schema sufficiently conveys what the tool returns and that it does not persist 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, target, and key constraint with no filler. Every word contributes meaningful information.

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 zero-parameter inference tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and the most important behavioral boundary (no disk write). There are no hidden parameters or complex side effects, so the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke it.

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 need not add parameter-level detail. Schema description coverage is trivially 100%, and the absence of parameters makes parameter semantics a non-issue; the baseline of 4 applies.

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 infers a design spec from the active PCB, using the specific verb 'infer' and identifying the resource. The qualifier 'without writing it to disk' helps distinguish it from sibling tools like project_get_design_spec that likely retrieve a persisted spec.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as project_get_design_spec or project_validate_design_spec. The 'without writing it to disk' hint implies a non-persistent inference use case, but no clear context or exclusion criteria are provided.

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