rf_design

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden and does so richly: it is asynchronous, the winner is re-solved at full fidelity, Altium grid snapping is handled, and write_altium mutates an open PCB and requires a live eda-agent bridge. These are exactly the non-obvious behaviors an agent needs.

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?

The description is compact, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and every sentence earns its place by explaining async behavior, fidelity guarantees, or side-effect prerequisites. No redundant wording.

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 complex tool with no schema descriptions and no annotations, the description covers the workflow and side effects well, but it omits crucial invocation details for the required spec parameter and most optional parameters. The output schema covers return value shape, so the main remaining gap is parameter-level guidance.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all six parameters, but it only meaningfully explains write_altium and the Altium-grid behavior. spec is required and opaque, and out_dir, n_trials, timeout_s, and altium_origin_mils are not explained at all.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Run the whole closed loop: seed, optimise, verify, export, report.' This clearly distinguishes the end-to-end tool from siblings like rf_optimize, rf_synthesize, and rf_export_altium.

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?

It states that this is the whole closed loop, implying use of individual siblings for narrower steps, and explicitly directs the agent to poll rf_job_status and to check rf_doctor before using write_altium. It does not exhaustively enumerate when-not-to-use conditions, but the workflow guidance is clear.

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