pcb_get_pads

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'query pad information' without disclosing what information is returned, whether it requires an open document, or any side effects. The behavior is largely opaque.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise but lacks structure and does not fully convey the tool's capabilities. It could be expanded with brief usage notes.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to specify what 'pad information' includes, behavior when designator is omitted, or error conditions. An agent may struggle to use it correctly.

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 100% with one optional parameter 'designator' described in Chinese. The tool description adds no new information about parameters beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 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?

The description '查询焊盘信息' (query pad information) clearly indicates the verb (query) and resource (pads). It distinguishes from sibling tools like pcb_get_tracks or pcb_get_board_info by specifying pads. However, it does not clarify whether it retrieves all pads or pads for a specific component.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pcb_get_tracks or pcb_get_net_primitives. An agent must infer context from the tool name alone.

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