plan_conformal_coating

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety bar is low; the description still adds what the tool actually computes and returns (thickness-window validation, reworkability conflict flags, enumerated masking keepouts). No contradiction with the read-only hint — this is a planning/analysis tool, not a mutator.

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 the standards reference front-loaded and the three behaviors ordered logically. It earns its length, though the packed parenthetical ranges make it slightly harder to scan at a glance.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by saying what the result contains — validation verdicts against type windows, reworkability flags, and enumerated keepouts. Sufficient for an agent to know what to expect and how to set the four optional params.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema by stating the per-type thickness windows (AR/ER/UR 30-130, SR 50-210, XY 10-50 μm), which is what makes measured_thickness_um interpretable. It also confirms that BOM module parts with contacts become keepouts.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource: a conformal-coating material selector plus masking keepout planner, scoped to IPC-CC-830C / IPC-A-610G §10. No sibling tool covers conformal coating, and the three functions (thickness validation, reworkability flagging, keepout enumeration) are stated concretely.

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 clause 'before the selective-coating program is generated' places it clearly in the workflow sequence. It gives clear triggering context but does not name exclusions or a sibling alternative for overlapping concerns (e.g. DFM audits like audit_industrial_dfx).

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