rf_altium_preflight

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses the three distinct failure modes (eda-agent not importable, Altium not running, bridge script not started) and states that the tool reports how to fix the missing piece. This gives an agent a clear model of what the tool examines and what it returns without overpromising. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or whether it performs fixes itself, but the diagnostic framing makes that reasonably clear.

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 brief sentences with zero filler. The key question is front-loaded, followed by a list of the three checks and the fix behavior. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a zero-parameter diagnostic tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete: it covers what is checked and what is reported. It could be strengthened by explicitly stating when to run it (e.g., 'run before rf_export_altium') or confirming non-destructiveness, but these are minor gaps given the preflight naming and the question format.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description needs to explain parameter meanings, and the description instead clarifies what the tool checks internally. No parameter documentation gap exists.

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?

The description states the tool's core function as a preflight check: determining whether a live Altium session is reachable with a PCB open and ready to write. It names the three conditions verified, which adds specificity beyond the tool name. However, the purpose is phrased as a question rather than an explicit verb+resource statement, and it does not directly distinguish itself from rf_export_altium or rf_design siblings by naming them.

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 name 'preflight' and the description imply this should be used before operations that require a live Altium session (e.g., export), but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. It does not name alternative tools or state conditions that would route an agent elsewhere. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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