calculate_smt_feeder_matrix

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the governing EIA-481 carrier-tape standard, OpenPnP/Juki machine matrices, and the concrete constraint domains (feeder pitches, nozzle numbers) the optimization respects.

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 first and the constraint set in parentheses; it is dense but every clause (standards, widths, nozzle IDs, machine matrices) carries information. Slightly over-packed but no filler.

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?

Given no output schema, the description should ideally state what the optimization returns (slot table, nozzle assignment) and note the synthesize_circuit input dependency, neither of which it does. The annotated safety profile is covered, so the remaining gap is the return contract and input prerequisite.

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%, so the schema already documents 'modules' as coming from synthesize_circuit output. The description adds nothing about the input shape, so 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 names a specific verb ('Optimize') and two concrete resources (feeder slot allocation, nozzle tooling selection) with the valid widths and nozzle IDs spelled out. It is clearly separable from siblings like calculate_smt_placement_clearance or export_openpnp_job, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 statement of when to use this tool, what triggers it in a workflow, or which alternatives exist. The implicit dependency on synthesize_circuit output is only inferable from the schema description, not the tool description.

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