analyze_pcb_eco

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description doesn't disclose what 'before' and 'after' represent (e.g., revision IDs, file paths), any output format, or rate limits, adding little 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 concise sentence with no waste, front-loading the comparison purpose. It is appropriately sized but could benefit from additional 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?

For a tool with 3 required parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to interpret 'changed nets', or what inputs are expected, leaving the agent under-informed.

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 should compensate for parameter semantics, but it only vaguely refers to 'changes' without explaining what 'project', 'before', and 'after' should contain (e.g., revision identifiers, file paths). This is a significant gap for required parameters.

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?

States a specific verb (Compare) and resources (connectivity, placement, project-file changes), distinguishing it from siblings like inspect_pcb_revision or diagnose_pcb_repair. It is clear but doesn't strongly differentiate its 'ECO' (engineering change order) focus from other analysis tools.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are given. The description implies comparison of two revisions but doesn't state when to choose this tool over inspect_pcb_revision or verify_pcb_revision, leaving the agent to infer.

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