optimize_panel_grid

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful process context — the 300x300mm fab limit framing and that results are ranked by material utilization — but says nothing about cost, pagination, or how many combinations may be returned.

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 no filler; the enumeration step is front-loaded ahead of the filtering and ranking steps. It is slightly long but every clause carries information.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so adequately by stating that feasible layouts are ranked by material utilization percentage. Defaults and the fab-limit constraint are present, so an agent has what it needs to call the tool.

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 are self-documented and the baseline is 3. The description broadens meaning by naming what is enumerated (grid_x x grid_y, rail sides, V-cut vs mouse-bites), but V-cut vs mouse-bites has no corresponding input parameter, so it clarifies outputs rather than inputs.

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 chain and resource: enumerate panel grid combinations, filter by max panel size, rank by material utilization. An agent immediately knows this is a panelization exploration tool, which is distinct from sibling calculate_pcb_panel_rails, though the description never explicitly names or contrasts that sibling.

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 implied by the described behavior (explore feasible panel layouts before committing to one), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no routing to the closely related calculate_pcb_panel_rails sibling. The agent must infer the selection context.

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