audit_smt_tombstone_risk

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

Annotations already establish that this is read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds useful domain behavior: it checks pad-width symmetry, targets 0201–0805 passives, and flags direct solid-plane connections lacking thermal relief spokes. It does not describe output severity or result format, but the core audit behavior is clear.

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 with no obvious filler, and the standards citation plus failure-mode naming are useful. It is dense but appropriately sized for a specialized audit tool.

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 specialized read-only audit tool with complete schema descriptions and clear annotations, the description gives enough domain context to understand the check. The main remaining gap is that no output schema exists and the return structure/severity detail is not specified.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context by tying the components to passive packages and pad-width symmetry, but it does not define acceptable pad_type values or explain precisely how default_trace_width_mm affects the audit.

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 audit purpose: SMT passive tombstoning risk, thermal relief symmetry, and unbalanced wetting torque. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling calculation and export tools by naming the exact failure mode and package scope.

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 strongly implied by 'risk auditor' and the described checks, so an agent can infer this is for SMT tombstoning review. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus related tools such as land-pattern or solder-paste calculations, nor does it state exclusions.

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