generate_assembly_process_plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real substance by naming the classification standard (IPC-A-610G Section 7) and the concrete output sequence (SPI -> ... -> packing). It does not state error modes or how components map to stages, but the behavioral payload is well above the annotation baseline.

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?

One dense sentence, front-loaded with the core action before the classification and routing detail. The parenthetical 10-stage chain is long but is genuinely informative rather than padding; no redundant sentences.

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 no output schema, the description properly compensates by spelling out the return structure: per-component stage classification plus the 10-stage EMS route. What's missing is whether per-component classification is returned alongside the route and how nested module data is consumed.

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%, where the schema already explains modules as a component dict from synthesize_circuit. The description adds no format or structural detail about that dict, so the 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?

States a specific verb (Generate) and a precise resource (mixed-assembly process route plan), then enumerates the exact classification buckets and the 10-stage routing produced. No sibling in the list competes with this output type (siblings are calculators/exporters), so the purpose is unambiguous.

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 only implied: the schema notes modules come 'from synthesize_circuit output', which hints at the upstream step, but the description itself never says when to invoke this versus the adjacent audit/calculation tools or what prerequisites must hold. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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