pcb_get_vias

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: 'Get' establishes a read-only enumeration and the description goes on to enumerate exactly what data comes back. It omits whether an active board is required or what happens if none is loaded, which keeps it below 5.

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?

Two short front-loaded sentences plus a compact return inventory. The 'Returns:' block partly restates the output schema, but it is brief and the field list is the most useful part of the definition.

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 the description needn't explain return values, and it does so only lightly. For a parameterless read tool, the only real gap is the absent precondition (active PCB document required) and no mention of volume or performance on large boards.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly supplies no parameter detail and instead spends its words on scope ('active board', 'all') and returned fields.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get all vias on the active PCB board.' The 'active board' scope plus 'all' distinguishes it in practice from pcb_get_selected_objects and pcb_normalize_vias, though it never names a 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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer this is the inventory read for vias — but there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no pointer to alternatives such as pcb_get_selected_objects or pcb_get_board_statistics.

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