get_stackup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, but 'Return' plus the sibling set make the read-only nature sufficiently evident. It discloses the returned shape (layer order, type, thickness, material) which is useful context, though an output schema already exists to cover that.

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?

A single sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no filler. Every clause earns its place by naming what the layers contain.

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 parameterless read tool with a full output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is returned and needs no return-value prose. The only gap is routing guidance against closely related layer/summary tools.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and no schema gap to compensate for; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies.

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?

Specific verb ('Return') and resource ('board stackup'), with the returned content enumerated: ordered layers with type, thickness and material. That distinguishes it from the nearby list_board_layers, though the description never names that sibling 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?

No when-to-use guidance at all. The description does not say when a stackup read is appropriate versus list_board_layers or get_board_summary, both of which overlap in scope, so the agent must infer the choice.

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