sch_find_free_placement

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the algorithm (reads schematic, builds occupancy grid) and the return format (a list of coordinate pairs). It discloses that it is a read-only operation by nature, though it doesn't explicitly state side-effect-free or performance limits beyond max count. This is solid behavioral context.

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 well-structured with a clear summary line, then a short algorithm note, a usage directive, an Args section, and a Returns section. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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?

This is a relatively simple query tool with 3 parameters and no required params. The description explains the return format, the defaults, and the inteded usage context. It lacks explicit notes on failure modes (e.g., what if no free slots exist?), but given that an output schema exists and the tool is straightforward, it is nearly complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: it explains count as 'Number of free coordinate slots to return (default 1, max 64)' and gives physical meaning for cell_width_mm and cell_height_mm with defaults. It could add more about how cell dimensions affect results, but it adds substantial meaning beyond bare schema names.

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 starts with a specific verb+resource: 'Find N collision-free placement coordinates for new symbols.' It clearly states what the tool does, distinguishes it from siblings like sch_add_symbol and sch_auto_place_symbols, and includes details about building an occupancy grid and returning coordinate pairs.

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 explicitly says 'Call this before sch_add_symbol to get safe (x, y) values,' which provides a clear when-to-use directive and names the alternative/next step. It also implies not to use this when placing symbols manually or when you already have coordinates.

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