run_board_review

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but provides only a cryptic phrase. It doesn't disclose whether the tool is read-only, mutates state (e.g., 'completing' a profile), or has side effects. The absence of behavioral detail is a significant gap.

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, but its brevity stems from under-specification rather than efficient concision. It conveys minimal actionable information and isn't structured to aid comprehension, so it doesn't earn 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?

For a tool amidst many review variants, with no annotations and an obscure parameter, the description is critically incomplete. An output schema exists, but the description doesn't explain what the review profile is, what inputs are expected, or what results to anticipate, leaving the tool poorly defined.

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 has one optional parameter 'path' with no description (0% coverage). The tool description doesn't mention the parameter or explain its purpose, format, or default behavior. The agent has no way to know what to pass, making parameter semantics essentially absent.

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 'Complete registered PCB review profile' is ambiguous: 'complete' could mean finish or comprehensive, and it doesn't clearly state what the tool does. It names a PCB review resource but fails to differentiate from sibling tools like run_thermal_review or run_bom_review, making the purpose vague.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes many similar review tools, but the description provides no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on selection.

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