analyze_plane_continuity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a behavioral limitation ('without claiming final-refill continuity'), which hints that the tool is non-committal about a certain property. However, it does not explain side effects, read/write nature, permissions, or what 'exported pour boundaries' means, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 short sentence, making it extremely concise and front-loaded. However, it is so terse that it becomes cryptic, sacrificing clarity for brevity. Still, structure-wise it is efficient with no wasted words.

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 likely performs a complex PCB analysis, but the description provides almost no context. It does not explain the input path, the nature of the output, or the meaning of 'final-refill continuity'. An output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the overall behavior and use case remain under-specified for a tool with this name.

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 input schema defines a single optional 'path' parameter with no schema description, and the tool description does not mention this parameter at all. With 0% schema coverage and zero compensation from the description, the agent has no idea what 'path' refers to or how to use it.

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 identifies a clear verb ('Inspect') and resource ('exported pour boundaries'), but the qualifier 'without claiming final-refill continuity' muddles the purpose. It is not clear what 'final-refill continuity' means or why this distinction matters, making the tool's exact function ambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, not when it should be invoked or what prerequisites exist. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided.

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