eagle_read_design

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. 'Read ... without EAGLE' establishes a safe read operation and independence from the application, but it says nothing about error behavior on malformed files, permission requirements, or the effect of max_items. The content enumeration is informative but overlaps with what the output schema already conveys.

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 main sentence is dense yet front-loaded with the verb and well-organized by document type. However, the bracketed preamble describes the whole EAGLE product suite rather than this tool, adding words that do not help the agent select or invoke it.

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-value details are not needed, and the description adequately signals the read-only nature and the domain covered. It still leaves gaps on the max_items parameter and on when to prefer this tool over the sibling eagle_bom/eagle_netlist readers.

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 description coverage is 0% and neither parameter is explained. design_file is inferrable from its name, but max_items (default 500) is never mentioned in the description, so an agent cannot tell what it bounds—item counts, nesting depth, or pagination—leaving a real comprehension gap.

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 core sentence gives a clear verb+resource ('Read an EAGLE XML design') and enumerates the three document kinds it handles (schematic, board, library). It is reasonably distinguishable from siblings like eagle_bom/eagle_netlist, though the bracket preamble lists BOM/netlist/CAM as EAGLE capabilities, which slightly blurs what this specific tool returns.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'without EAGLE' hints that this is for parsing design XML when the application is unavailable, and the content list implies when to pick schematic vs board vs library. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives such as eagle_bom or eagle_netlist.

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