sch_get_constraint_groups

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses the return structure in detail, including the type and shape of groups and constraints. It implies a read-only operation through 'Enumerate' and 'get' but does not explicitly state there are no side effects or required permissions, which keeps it from a 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?

The description is front-loaded with purpose and is generally efficient, but the explicit Returns section duplicates information already available in the output schema, making it slightly longer than necessary.

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 has no parameters and an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it explains what constraint groups are, their structure, and a concrete use case. It could mention prerequisites (e.g., an active schematic is required) or error handling, but it is largely complete.

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 no parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description adds context about what the tool operates on (the active schematic), but there are no parameters to clarify.

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 states a specific verb ('Enumerate') and resource ('IDocument.DM_ConstraintGroups on the active schematic'), and explicitly notes they are FPGA-style pin/timing constraints not found in the regular PCB design-rule list, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like pcb_get_design_rules.

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?

It provides a clear use case ('auditing FPGA pin assignments and timing constraints that don't show up in the regular PCB design-rule list'), implicitly guiding when to choose this tool over PCB rule queries. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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