pcb_get_copper_pours

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden. The verb 'Get' and the enumerated return fields clearly indicate a non-mutating data retrieval operation. It does not describe error behavior or large-result handling, but for a simple getter it is adequately transparent.

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?

Single focused sentence, front-loaded with the operation, and efficiently lists the data categories without wasted words.

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?

One-parameter tool with no output schema; description names the key output dimensions (areas, nets, clearances per layer), which is sufficient. Minor ambiguity about whether all pours/layers are returned, but the absence of a layer parameter implies all.

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 covers session_id at 100% with a meaningful description, so baseline 3. Tool description adds no parameter-level semantics, but none are needed beyond the schema.

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 specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'copper pour/zone data' with concrete sub-items (areas, nets, clearances per layer), making it clearly distinct from sibling getters like drill tables or 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?

No guidance on when to use this vs alternatives (e.g., pcb_analyze_copper_spreading). It does not mention prerequisites beyond session ID or any exclusions.

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