analyze_placement

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a key non-obvious detail: all distances are in millimetres regardless of the document's Units attribute. However, it doesn't explicitly state that the tool is read-only/non-destructive (though 'measure' implies it), nor does it reveal any potential limitations or failure modes. The unit disclosure is useful but not comprehensive.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded. Two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second provides a crucial unit detail and points to the schema. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.

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 tool has an output schema, so return values don't need explanation. However, the description lacks context about when to run this analysis, whether a document must be open, or how it relates to other placement tools. For an analysis tool with 4 parameters, it's minimally adequate but leaves room for clarification.

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 adds meaning to the distance-related parameters (spacing, board_edge_clearance) by stating they are in millimetres. However, it doesn't explain 'path' or 'selector', which remain ambiguous. The reference to the input schema is helpful but not a substitute for semantic explanation.

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 and resource: 'Measure current component overlap, containment and placement score.' This clearly states what the tool does. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'score_placement' or 'generate_placement_candidates', but the mention of 'overlap, containment, and placement score' gives enough specificity to infer its scope.

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 versus alternatives. It doesn't mention typical use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The only contextual hint is 'current', implying analysis of the existing state, but there is no explicit comparison to other placement-related tools.

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