pcb_auto_place_components

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal core behavior (moving components to pad centroids) and the locked-skip rule, but omits side effects (permanent placement changes), scope (all components vs selection), and reversibility. This is partial but not comprehensive disclosure.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured Chinese sentence that states the purpose ('自动布局'), method ('移动到其焊盘质心'), algorithm level ('一阶优化'), and exception ('锁定元件跳过') with no wasted words.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description explains the concept and provides the locked-skip detail, but it lacks information about operation scope, what '一阶优化' means in practice, and behavior when maxMoves is reached. These gaps make it sufficient but not 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 single parameter maxMoves has full schema coverage with its description ('最大移动数（默认 100）'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The tool description adds no extra meaning about how maxMoves is used in the first-order optimization, giving no value beyond structured data.

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 explicitly states the tool performs automatic layout ('自动布局') by moving components to their pad centroid ('移动到其焊盘质心') and skips locked ones ('锁定元件跳过'). This clearly distinguishes it from manual placement tools like pcb_move_component or pcb_batch_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 description conveys clear context: it is an auto-placement optimization tool that moves components to pad centroids, with locked components skipped. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer it over related automatic tools like pcb_fanout_component or pcb_auto_route_nets, nor does it state exclusions.

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