pcb_design_health_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey safety side effects. It mentions 'one-click output' and lists checks, suggesting a read-only report operation, but it does not explicitly state that it makes no modifications to the design. Since there are no annotations, the description carries the full responsibility for behavioral clarity and only implies a non-mutating action.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose ('one-click design health report'), lists key checks, and ends with the rating scale. It is concise without being vacuously short, packing all essential information into one line.

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 the tool has zero parameters and no sibling context in the description, it's important to explain what the report includes and how to interpret it. The description does this well, listing the checks and the rating scale. It doesn't mention return format or side effects, but for a report aggregator with no inputs, this is reasonably 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 has zero parameterstons, so there is no parameter semantics to clarify. The description nonetheless adds value by explaining what the output encompasses, which is effectively the 'parameterless' contract. With no params to document, the baseline of 4 is justified.

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 the tool produces a design health report, explicitly enumerates the checks included (BOM, connectivity, current carrying, DRC, clearance), and specifies the output rating scale (READY/NEEDS_WORK/POOR). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform individual checks (e.g., pcb_run_drc, pcb_bom_export), positioning it as an aggregator.

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 implies a one-click comprehensive health check. It does not explicitly state which sibling tools to use instead of or in addition to this one, but the inclusion of multiple check types in the description implicitly advises using this aggregate tool for a quick overview. It lacks explicit 'use this instead of individual checks' guidance, but the intent is clear.

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