run_silkscreen_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses no behavioral traits, side effects, or what the tool actually does during a silkscreen review, such as whether it modifies the design or just reports findings.

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?

At only four words, the description is not an example of appropriate conciseness but of severe under-specification. Every word is wasted because it fails to convey any useful information about the tool's behavior.

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 with no annotations and an output schema, the description should explain what the check does, what inputs it accepts, and what the output represents. None of this is present, making the description wholly inadequate for safe invocation.

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 contains one optional 'path' parameter with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description does not mention 'path' at all, so there is no added meaning about what path should point to, whether it is required for certain inputs, or what format is expected.

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 'Silkscreen review profile.' lacks a verb and does not clearly state that the tool runs a silkscreen check. It essentially restates the tool name using a synonym ('review' vs 'check') and adds the ambiguous noun 'profile', offering no specific purpose. This fails to distinguish from numerous sibling review 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 like run_thermal_review or check_silkscreen. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without criteria for selection.

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