refill_zones

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without explaining side effects (e.g., board modification, overwriting existing pours), prerequisites (e.g., existing zones), or output behavior, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 extremely concise (4 words), but conciseness should not come at the expense of crucial information. It lacks structure and detail, making it underspecified rather than optimally concise.

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 minimal schema coverage (0%), no annotations, and the existence of an output schema (not described), the description is severely incomplete. The agent lacks essential context about tool semantics, parameter meaning, and return value.

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 'block' is not explained in the description. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description fails to add meaning beyond what the schema provides, leaving the agent to guess its purpose and valid values.

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 action ('Refill') and resource ('copper zones') clearly. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_zones' or 'add_copper_pour' by specifying a different operation, though the context of 'refill' in PCB design may require domain knowledge.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., when to refill vs. add or list zones). There is no mention of prerequisites or scenarios to avoid, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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