rf_synthesize

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It honestly reveals the no-solving behavior, the analytic-seed behavior when params is null, the low cost profile, and the PNG output. It does not clarify side effects such as whether out_dir writes files or how render affects output, so it is adequate but not rich.

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?

Extremely tight and front-loaded: the core behavior appears in the first sentence, usage guidance follows immediately, and the final sentence points at the inspectable output. Every line adds information; no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details are not required. Still, with no annotations and a required spec parameter that has zero schema explanation, the description is not fully self-sufficient. It captures purpose and cost well but leaves parameter semantics and the distinction from rf_design under-specified.

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, but it only explains the null-params case and hints at a PNG. It does not explain what the required spec should be, nor what render or out_dir control. Three of four parameters remain effectively 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?

States a clear verb ('Draw') and object ('candidate layout') and adds a critical behavioral constraint ('without solving it'), which differentiates it from the solver siblings. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from rf_design, which may also be a layout-generation tool.

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?

Provides clear usage context: it is cheap and meant for sanity-checking dimensions, DRC, and board size before committing solver time. This implies a before-solve workflow, but it names no alternatives and does not state explicit when-not-to-use conditions.

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