calculate_ict_testpoints

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable computation and the description does not contradict that. The description adds domain behavior beyond the annotations: B.Cu Φ1.0mm testpad geometry, probe tip categories (crown, spear, serrated), and compliance with IPC-9252 and IPC-2221B. It stops short of describing what the analysis returns or what happens when coverage targets fail to be met.

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 dense sentence with the primary action ('allocate automated bed-of-nails ICT testpoints') positioned early and supporting detail trailing. It is slightly overloaded by stacking four distinct activities plus two standards into one clause, but there is no filler text.

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 multi-step analysis tool with no output schema, the description does name the artifacts produced (allocated testpoints, assigned probe tips, fault coverage percentage) and the governing standards, which is enough for correct invocation. It could still be stronger by clarifying the return shape and any coverage thresholds, but it is substantially complete for a 5-parameter analysis call.

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 five parameters (including the required connections and the board/pitch/pad geometry defaults) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific detail such as units, valid ranges, or interaction between min_probe_pitch_mm and min_pad_diameter_mm. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names concrete verbs and resources: analyze netlist testability, allocate bed-of-nails ICT testpoints, assign probe tip types, and verify fault coverage. It is highly specific about the domain. However, it makes no attempt to differentiate itself from related siblings such as audit_industrial_dfx, export_ipc_d356 (the IPC-D-356 ICT data export), or validate_netlist, so an agent must infer the boundary from the name alone.

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 when-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisites, and no named alternative. The schema hints that connections come from synthesize_circuit output, but the description itself gives no ordering or routing advice (e.g., run before export_ipc_d356 or after validate_netlist).

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