Run PCB production review

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) already declare safe read-only behavior. Description adds context about running rules and reporting severity-ranked findings, which is consistent and provides additional behavioral detail (e.g., actionable remediation). No contradictions.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states action, second describes output. No extraneous information, front-loaded with key purpose. Every sentence is necessary and efficient.

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?

Description covers purpose and output format but omits parameter descriptions for a complex tool with a nested boardData object and enum gateMode. Output schema exists, so return values are covered indirectly. Parameter usage guidance is missing, reducing completeness.

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?

Description does not reference any of the three parameters (projectId, gateMode, boardData). With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but fails to explain parameter meaning or usage. The many properties in boardData remain undocumented.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'run', resource 'production review rules', and purpose for PCB handoff. It specifies DFM/DFA/DFT focus and distinguishes from siblings like DRC/ERC runs by mentioning fabrication, assembly, and testability review before Gerber export.

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?

Description indicates when to use ('before Gerber export or manufacturing submission'), but does not explicitly exclude other similar checks (e.g., when to use this vs easyeda_drc_run). It provides context for usage but lacks explicit alternatives or when-not conditions.

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