cst_pcb_create_ground_plane

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

With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral traits. It explains the construction method (brick minus cutouts) but omits details like whether existing geometry is affected, if the plane is created on a specific layer, or if undo support exists. It carries the burden adequately but not thoroughly.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the core action and optional feature, with no filler. Every word adds value.

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 6 parameters with full schema and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the high-level process (brick + subtraction) and mentions optional cutouts. Lacks any mention of return values, but no output schema exists, so it's not required.

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 100%, so the description's role in adding parameter meaning is minimal. The description adds context like 'split planes' and 'isolation slots' but does not detail individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states it creates a ground or power plane with optional cutouts, explaining the mechanism of generating a solid copper brick and subtracting cutout regions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cst_pcb_create_trace (creates traces) or cst_create_brick (generic brick).

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. While the description implies it's for PCB ground/power planes, it does not differentiate from other PCB creation tools (e.g., when to use this vs cst_pcb_create_trace) or mention prerequisites like having a stackup defined.

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