inspect_pcb_revision

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by enumerating the returned content categories, but discloses nothing about permissions, cost, or failure modes beyond that. No contradiction with 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with a clear verb and an enumerated object list; nothing is wasted. It is efficient, if a touch terse given the coordination complexity of this tool family.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden; it lists content categories but not format or structure. Parameter meanings remain unaddressed, leaving the definition adequate but not complete for a 2-required-param inspection tool.

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 the two required parameters ('project' and 'revision'). The description says 'the revision's' contents but never explains the arguments' format, accepted values, or how project and revision relate. With low coverage, the description should compensate and does not.

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 ('the revision') and enumerates the exact content retrieved (components, nets, outline, restrictions, constraints). This clearly distinguishes the *what* of the operation, though it never differentiates itself from sibling readers like inspect_pcb_inventory, list_pcb_revisions, or verify_pcb_revision.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The word 'actual' hints that this reads current/real state, but the agent gets no condition for choosing this over list_pcb_revisions or verify_pcb_revision.

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