check_placement

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses which measurements are produced and the interpretation of airwire length ('lower usually means easier routing'), which implies a read-only analysis, but never states that nothing is modified, nor any cost, permissions, or side effects.

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 short and front-loaded: the measurement scope comes first, then the interpretation, then per-argument notes. No filler sentences, though the line-wrapped arg notes are slightly less polished.

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. Combined with the metric list and fully explained parameters, the definition gives an agent enough to call it correctly; only mutation-safety and inter-tool routing are left implicit.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: exclude_nets is explained with a concrete typical value ('GND') and the reason (a ground pour will connect it), and top_airwires is explained as the count of longest airwires to list. Both parameters gain meaning beyond the bare 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Score the current placement') and enumerates the exact metrics computed: courtyard overlaps, off-board parts, and total airwire length. This clearly separates it from siblings like check_clearance or run_drc, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 gives a workflow hint ('compare before/after when moving parts'), which implies usage during iterative placement, but offers no explicit when-not guidance or comparison against the similar-sounding check_clearance and run_drc siblings.

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