audit_industrial_dfx

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful context by enumerating the specific checks performed and citing standards (IEC 61000-4-2), so an agent knows what findings to expect. It does not, however, describe output format or severity reporting.

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 sentence with the action verb front-loaded, then a dense but purposeful enumeration of checked domains. Every clause earns its place, though the packed single-sentence structure could be slightly more scannable.

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 complex multi-domain audit with no output schema, the description compensates well by listing the verification domains, and annotations cover safety. The remaining gap is that it never indicates the shape of the result (violation list vs. pass/fail report).

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema documenting the 'netlist' object's 'components' and 'connections' structure. The description adds no format or structural detail beyond what the schema already conveys, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Execute... compliance audit') and resource ('schematic netlist'), then enumerates the exact check domains (fiducials, ICT coverage, TVS surge, reverse polarity, SMT costs). This clearly distinguishes it from the narrower validate_netlist, run_erc, and calculate_ict_testpoints siblings.

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?

Usage is implied by the DFX audit framing, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when it should be preferred over validate_netlist, run_erc, or analyze_power_tree, and no stated prerequisites. The agent must infer the selection criteria.

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