check_clearance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It clearly states the check is approximate and that run_drc is authoritative, but does not explicitly state that it is read-only and does not modify the board, leaving a minor gap for a no-annotation tool.

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 front-loaded with the tool's purpose, then scope guidance, then the important authoritative-tool caveat. The Args section is minimal and every sentence adds useful information.

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 values need not be described. The description adequately covers purpose, scoping, and approximation caveat, though with no annotations a brief explicit read-only note would make it fully complete.

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 sole parameter is undocumented in the schema (0% description coverage), but the description compensates fully: item_ids are track KIIDs, and an empty value checks every track on the board. This adds essential runtime semantics beyond the bare anyOf schema.

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 specific verb and resource: clearance check of tracks against other nets' copper, including the relevant copper types (tracks, vias, pads) and the netclass-clearance basis. It also distinguishes itself from the authoritative sibling run_drc.

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?

Explicitly explains how to scope the check via track KIIDs, what an empty argument means, and names run_drc as the authoritative alternative for final verification. The agent can choose between quick approximate checking and authoritative DRC without inference.

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