diagnose_pcb_repair

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it clarifies that this only reads recorded findings and does not invoke native execution, which is important given a 'diagnose' name could imply active tooling. It still omits return format or any data-freshness behavior.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core action leads and the scope boundary follows. It is efficient, though very terse given the parameter and output gaps.

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?

Annotations carry the safety profile and there is no output schema, so return-value explanation is not required. Still, with 0% parameter coverage and no output schema, the description leaves an agent without any guidance on the meaning/format of project and revision or what the recorded findings look like.

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% for both required parameters (project, revision). The description only implicitly scopes results via 'scoped repair proposals' and never explains what project/revision identify or their expected formats, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (Read) and resource (recorded verified DRC findings and scoped repair proposals), and the second sentence adds a negative scope boundary ('Does not run native tools'). It is clearly distinguishable from the submit_* repair siblings, though it does not name them explicitly.

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 'Does not run native tools' line implies this is a read-only diagnostic over already-recorded results, which is useful routing context. However, it never states when to choose this over siblings like submit_pcb_repair or analyze_pcb_eco, and there are no explicit conditions or exclusions.

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