pcb_get_tracks

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

With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden but only states 'query track segments'. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what the return format is, or any side effects. The verb 'query' implies non-destructive behavior, but this is implicit.

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 extremely brief (4 Chinese characters), but it sacrifices informativeness for brevity. It does not earn its place as it provides minimal value beyond the tool name.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns. '查询走线段' is insufficient; it does not indicate that tracks might be filtered by net/layer or describe the output structure.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions, so the description adds no additional meaning. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents both optional parameters (net and layer) effectively.

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 '查询走线段' clearly states the verb 'query' and the resource 'track segments', making the tool's purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like pcb_get_net_primitives or pcb_get_pads, which could overlap in functionality.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, when not to use it, or relationships to other tools.

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