compare_pcb_placement_candidates

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Rank' implies a read-only analysis, but the description does not explicitly say whether it modifies the design, whether it runs physics simulations, what input state is required, or what the output represents. It adds only a hint about physics and sourced rules.

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, compact sentence with no filler or repetition. It is front-loaded and easy to scan, though the ambiguity of 'A-D candidates' and the vague term 'physics' reduce clarity slightly. It is concise but perhaps too terse for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the complexity of the engineering_rules nested object, four optional parameters, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify how candidates are supplied, what the profiles do, how include_existing_board affects ranking, or what the output schema contains. The output schema exists, so return values do not need explanation, but too much operational context is missing.

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 for undocumented parameters. 'Optional sourced rules' hints at engineering_rules, but path, profiles, and include_existing_board are not explained at all. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the raw schema and is insufficient for a 4-parameter tool.

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 clearly states the core action: rank PCB placement candidates using physics and optional engineering rules. It distinguishes the PCB focus from the sibling rank_schematic_placement_candidates, but does not explicitly differentiate from score_placement or explain what 'A-D candidates' means, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

Usage is implied: you call this when you have PCB placement candidates that need ranking with physics and optionally sourced rules. However, it does not state when to prefer it over alternatives like score_placement, generate_placement_candidates, or rank_schematic_placement_candidates, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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