audit_component_msl_floor_life

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: it flags expired components and emits concrete baking schedules (125°C/24h or 40°C/192h), telling the agent what output to expect and why it matters (popcorning prevention).

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 front-loaded sentence with the action and target first, then standards and output details. It is dense but every clause (package list, standards, baking examples, defect rationale) carries information; only the popcorning tail could be trimmed.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of implying returns, which it does well by naming flagged components and baking schedules. Combined with a complete parameter schema and reconciled annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though the output shape is only implied.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents modules, ambient_rh_pct, ambient_temp_c, and exposed_hours_default with defaults. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g. how msl_level or exposed_hours interact), so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (Audit) and resource (SMD plastic packages for MSL and open-bag floor life), enumerating covered package types and standards. No sibling tool addresses moisture sensitivity, so an agent can unambiguously separate it from the fab/assembly/DFM auditors in the list.

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 what the tool produces (flags expired components, generates baking schedules), which implies its usage context, but never states when to invoke it versus alternatives or any prerequisite (e.g. 'run after validating the package'). With no sibling naming the condition, guidance stays implicit.

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