rank_schematic_placement_candidates

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool ranks candidates with optional engineering rules, but does not indicate whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, requires specific permissions, or how the ranking is performed.

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 compact single sentence with no padding, concise. It front-loads the main action and resource. However, the phrase 'optional sourced engineering rules' is terse and somewhat ambiguous, so not a 5.

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 large sibling toolset and the existence of ambiguous tools like score_placement and plan_component_placement, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the relationship to candidate generation or how 'engineering rules' affect ranking, and the lack of observable output or behavioral details hurts ability to make a confident selection.

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 schema description coverage is 0% and there are two parameters, but the description only mentions 'optional sourced engineering rules' in a vague way. It does not clarify the 'path' parameter or the structure and role of the engineering rules beyond the schema's own type description.

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 'rank' and a clear resource 'schematic candidates', with the addition of optional 'sourced engineering rules' giving some extra scope. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like score_placement or plan_component_placement, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not explain when this tool is preferred over related tools such as generate_placement_candidates, score_placement, or plan_component_placement, nor does it mention any prerequisites for surgical context.

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