audit_smt_nozzle_selection

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. Beyond that, the description adds substantive method context: OD clearance against tape pocket walls, ID vacuum seal against leakage, and a dynamic inertial safety factor threshold (SF >= 1.5) under 3G-5G acceleration. It does not describe the return format, but with annotations covering the safety profile this is strong added value.

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 core audit scope is front-loaded, but the entire description is one dense run-on sentence packed with acronyms (OD, ID, SF, 3G~5G) that could be split for scannability. It is information-rich but structurally not optimal.

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 an 11-param computation tool with no output schema, the description conveys what the verification produces (OD/ID clearance verdicts, SF >= 1.5 threshold), giving the agent a reasonable expectation of results. It stops short of fully describing outputs or prerequisites, keeping it from a 5.

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 all 11 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description loosely connects some params (vendor names, 3G-5G acceleration, vacuum) to the computation, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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?

The description states a specific verb (audit/verify) and resource (SMT pick-and-place nozzle selection & vacuum), then enumerates exactly what it verifies: OD clearance, ID vacuum seal, and inertial hold safety factor. No sibling tool covers nozzle/vacuum selection (calculate_smt_feeder_matrix and optimize_smt_feeder_setup address feeders), so the agent can distinguish it from 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The audit scope implies its purpose, but nothing tells the agent when to pick this over sibling SMT tools such as calculate_smt_placement_clearance or calculate_smt_feeder_matrix.

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