pcb_auto_silkscreen

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior and it does not. It mentions the action but not whether changes are destructive, reversible, or if there are side effects on other board elements. This is a mutation tool with no safety context.

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 very concise, a single short sentence, and communicates the essential purpose without waste. This is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool, though it is slightly under-specified in other dimensions.

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 nearly complete, but it omits usage context and behavioral side effects. It is adequate for basic understanding but lacks depth for a mutation tool that reorganizes board elements.

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 has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so schema is complete. The description adds value by explaining the tool operates on all silkscreens and the goal is to avoid overlap, which is meaningful given the empty schema.

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 the tool automatically arranges all silkscreens to avoid overlap. It is specific enough about the action and resource, but it does not clearly differentiate from sibling tool pcb_move_silkscreen, which also deals with silkscreen positioning but likely manually.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus manual silkscreen movement or other auto-placement tools. It also does not mention any prerequisites or expected board state, leaving the usage context unclear.

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