thermal_check_copper_pour

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects, prerequisites, and behavior on missing pours, but it only says 'check,' implying read-only without explicitly stating so. It also does not mention board state requirements or how results are presented.

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 with no unnecessary words, which is concise, but it is under-sized for a tool with three parameters and no annotations. The brevity is not an asset because it omits essential context.

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?

The description provides only the basic intent without explaining what constitutes 'support,' what the output looks like, or how expected_power_w relates to the check. Even though an output schema exists, the description does not connect the tool's purpose to its parameters or results, leaving it incomplete.

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 schema has three parameters with zero description coverage, and the tool description only hints at 'the net' without explaining net_name. It does not clarify the meaning or purpose of preferred_layer or expected_power_w, leaving the agent without enough information to set them correctly.

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 'Check whether' and identifies the resource as 'copper pour support for the net,' making the core action clear. It distinguishes this as a status-check tool rather than a generation or calculation tool, but 'copper pour support' is not defined, leaving some ambiguity.

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, no exclusions, and no mention of alternative tools. It does not say whether it should be used before generating a pour or for validating thermal design, leaving the agent without context for sibling selection.

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