plan_silkscreen

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It does state 'persist' (a write/lasting effect) and 'deterministic' (repeatable behavior), but it does not mention reversibility, permissions, modification of the design, or consequences for existing silkscreen plans. This is comparable to update_drive, which scored a 2 for similar gaps.

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 sentences, both information-dense and free of padding. The unit clarification is high-value and immediately relevant, and the description is front-loaded with the most important verb-object pairing.

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?

For an 8-parameter mutation-style tool with no annotations, this is significantly under-specified. It doesn't mention what the plan contains, where it is persisted, how to retrieve or apply it, what 'legal' constraints are enforced, or the tool's relationship to apply_silkscreen_plan. The presence of an output schema helps return-value expectations, but the operation's side effects and preconditions remain opaque.

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 each of the 8 parameters must be explained by the description. The only parameter-level hint is 'All distances are in millimetres', which clarifies grid, clearance, and board_edge_clearance, but leaves selector, path, search_steps, include_board_texts, and avoid_component_bodies entirely unexplained.

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 strong, specific verbs ('generate and persist') and a precise resource ('deterministic legal silkscreen placement plan'). It naturally differentiates from sibling tools by indicating it creates a plan rather than applying or checking one, and the word 'legal' adds domain-specific precision.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus close siblings like apply_silkscreen_plan, check_silkscreen, or run_silkscreen_check. No workflow context, prerequisites, or alternative-selection tips are given, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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