calculate_wave_solder_orientation_audit

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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, read-only operation, lowering the bar. The description adds genuine behavioral content — the actual audit criteria (tombstoning, bridging, shadow keepouts) — but says nothing about what the audit returns or how results are reported, and no output schema exists to fill that gap.

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 dense but relevant technical content and zero filler. Slightly long, but every clause (standards, package-specific rules, keepout) earns its place.

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 read-only audit with nested module input, the description conveys what is being checked and against which standards thoroughly. The one gap is that with no output schema, it never hints at return values, but the domain rules are complete enough to invoke correctly.

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% for both parameters, so the schema already documents 'modules' and 'flow_direction'. The description references flow direction contextually (perpendicular/parallel to flow) but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema supplies — baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb (audit) and resource (bottom-side SMD wave soldering orientation angles and hydrodynamic shadowing), plus the governing standards (IPC-7351B, SMTA). The embedded rules — chip passives perpendicular, SOIC parallel, 3xH keepout — make it unmistakable against siblings like calculate_smt_placement_clearance.

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 makes the domain of applicability obvious (bottom-side SMD wave soldering) but never states when to use this vs. alternatives such as calculate_smt_placement_clearance, nor any prerequisites. Usage is implied by the subject matter rather than explicitly guided.

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