suggest_placement_moves

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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior; the description reinforces 'Nothing is changed' and adds useful search-space behavior: 'searched within radius_mm of each part, inside the board and clear of same-side parts.' It also clarifies that fixed parts must not move, going beyond the annotations.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by constraints and workflow. No filler text; 'Nothing is changed' is justified by the workflow reminder, though it slightly repeats the annotation.

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?

Given four optional parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers the return (ranked moves), the safe workflow, and search constraints. It omits explanation of top and exclude_nets, which slightly weakens completeness, but overall an agent can call it correctly.

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 the burden. It explains fixed ('parts that must not move (connectors, mechanical parts)') and radius_mm ('searched within radius_mm of each part'), but leaves top and exclude_nets undocumented, leaving two parameters partially ambiguous.

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 states a specific verb (suggests) and resource (placement moves), including scope ('single-part'), objective ('lower the placement score (shorter ratsnest, fewer crossings)'), and search constraints. It distinguishes itself from move_part and score_placement by describing the suggestion-then-apply workflow.

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?

It indicates the post-suggestion workflow ('apply the ones that make sense with move_part, then score again') and makes clear that this tool is read-only. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like place_clusters or state when not to use this tool.

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