check_gerbers

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real operational depth beyond that by enumerating what is validated (layer set, outline size, every drilled hole's diameter/position, pad flash counts), which tells the agent the scope of the check.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource, then a dense parenthetical enumerating the checks. It is long but nearly every clause adds a distinct validation dimension; only the long inline list borders on overloading a single sentence.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope of checks, and when to run it. It does not describe the return format (pass/fail vs. issue list) or failure behavior, which is the main remaining gap since no output schema exists.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter. It does meaningful work by clarifying that the single path parameter points to a 'zip or folder of gerbers + Excellon drills' rather than, say, a design file — compensating for the undocumented schema.

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?

States a specific verb (check) and resource (CAM output zip/folder of gerbers + Excellon drills) against the open design. It is clearly distinguishable from the design-side checks like run_drc, run_erc, and check_jlc_orientation because it explicitly verifies a manufactured CAM artifact, not the live design.

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?

Gives a concrete when-to-use instruction: 'Run it on the zip before uploading to the fab.' It frames the workflow trigger well, but names no alternatives and no when-not-to-use case, so it stops short of a full routing guide.

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