calculate_smt_placement_clearance

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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the bar is lower. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the actual decision rules (tall = H >= 4.0mm, 2.0mm horizontal keepout) and what the tool produces (layered placement priority sequences ordered lowest-to-tallest) with cited standards, which is genuine behavioral context.

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 three parallel clauses, front-loaded on the core action and free of filler. Slightly overloaded for one sentence, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With 5 parameters, one required nested object, and no output schema, the description does the important work of explaining what the tool returns (priority sequences, keepout evaluation). The main gap is that it never identifies the required modules input's provenance or what happens when no collisions are found.

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 every parameter (board dimensions, clearance envelope, tall-component threshold) is already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description restates the 4.0mm and 2.0mm defaults but adds no units, ranges, or interaction semantics beyond that.

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 set (analyze / evaluate / generate) against a precisely scoped resource: SMT nozzle collision clearance between tall and low components. It is instantly distinguishable from nearby siblings such as calculate_smt_feeder_matrix, calculate_stencil_aperture_ratios, or export_openpnp_job.

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?

The description never states when to run this versus alternatives, nor does it state prerequisites such as needing positioned modules from synthesize_circuit before calling. Usage is only inferable from the domain context, and there are no exclusions or ordering guidance anywhere in the text.

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