pcb_auto_silkscreen

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says it rearranges all silkscreens but does not warn that this is a bulk mutation, whether it can be undone, or whether it affects existing manual placements.

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 short sentence with no filler; the core operation is front-loaded and every word adds meaning.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: the agent knows what action will be taken. However, because it mutates all silkscreen placements and no annotations cover side effects, a note about reversibility or confirmation would make it more complete.

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 and schema coverage is complete, so there are no parameters to document. The description does not need to add parameter details, and the baseline for a zero-parameter tool applies.

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 (自动排列/auto-arrange), a resource (所有丝印/all silkscreens), and a goal (避免重叠/avoid overlap). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling pcb_move_silkscreen, which is a manual per-element move.

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?

The intended use is implied: use this when you want automatic, board-wide silkscreen arrangement rather than manual movement. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or states when not to use it.

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