score_placement

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: 'Lower is better' for interpreting results and 'Pour nets (GND) are excluded by default,' which affects what the agent sees. It omits return format, but no output schema exists so that gap is moderate.

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-loads what the tool measures, then adds the interpretation hint and the GND default, then the usage cue. Two sentences plus a short fragment, each earning its place with minimal waste.

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 read-only scoring tool with no output schema, the description covers what is computed, how to interpret it, and when to run it. The main remaining gap is that output shape and the effect of crossing_weight_mm are not explained.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It implies the exclude_nets behavior via the GND-exclusion default, but says nothing about crossing_weight_mm or its role in the crossing metric, leaving one of two parameters undocumented everywhere.

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 (score) and resource (placement) and defines exactly what is measured: ratsnest length via MST per net over pad centres, crossing air wires, and worst nets. An agent can distinguish this scoring tool from the sibling suggest_placement_moves, which proposes moves rather than measuring quality.

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 clear context: 'Use it before and after placement changes,' which tells the agent when the tool is appropriate. It does not name an explicit alternative or exclusion relative to suggest_placement_moves, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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