check_3d_models

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

Annotations already declare this is a safe, idempotent, non-destructive read, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value by stating what is compared (part height ranges vs the board) and what is reported (a list of parts whose model sits on the wrong side, with the top/bottom reversal spelled out). It doesn't state prerequisites such as needing models attached or an open design.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler: the scope ('the open 3D PCB') and the check come first, and the parenthetical clarifies the failure case concretely. Nothing is redundant.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description carries most of the remaining burden and does it well by explaining the comparison and the reported result. The one gap is prerequisites (an open design with attached 3D models), which an agent might need to know before calling.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies the operation acts on the already-open board rather than taking a design identifier.

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 gives a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('the open 3D PCB'), then narrows the check to part height ranges versus the board and parts whose model sits on the wrong side. That is far more specific than a generic 'validate 3D' tool. It stops short of naming a sibling (e.g. check_jlc_orientation or attach_3d_model), so differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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 run this on the currently open 3D PCB to catch mirrored/wrong-side models. There is no explicit when-to-use framing, no prerequisites (design open, 3D models attached), and no contrast with the neighboring checks like check_jlc_orientation or run_drc.

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