optimize_smt_feeder_setup

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds meaningful runtime context beyond the annotations: it discloses the GT pinning strategy, center-of-gantry placement rule, and per-batch run-out forecasting under IPC-9851, which tells the agent what the optimization actually does.

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 that front-loads the verb and resource before the algorithm detail. Every clause carries information, though the brand enumeration (Panasonic NPM / Fuji NXT / ASM SIPLACE) is slightly padded.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates partially by naming what the optimization produces: pinned common reels, high-frequency placement, and run-out exhaustion forecasts. It does not describe the return structure or pagination/serialization, leaving a modest gap for a nested-input computation 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 the schema already documents all four parameters, including defaults and the nested modules object. The description only weakly echoes batch_size ('per batch size'), adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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+resource: optimizing SMT pick-and-place feeder trolley allocation on an 80-slot cart, and even names the machine platforms and the algorithms used. An agent can tell it apart from generic siblings, but it never addresses the very close sibling calculate_smt_feeder_matrix, so the boundary between the two is left implicit.

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 description makes clear this is for SMT line feeder-cart setup, but it gives no when-to-use/when-not, no prerequisites (e.g. that 'modules' must come from synthesis or a netlist), and no pointer to an alternative such as calculate_smt_feeder_matrix.

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