pcb_get_traces

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose what the summary contains, whether a valid session is needed, or any limitations or side effects. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond what the tool name already suggests.

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 a single concise sentence: 'Get trace summary from a parsed design.' It is front-loaded with the action and resource, contains no filler, and every word is relevant.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple getter with a session_id and optional layer filter, and it does mention the parsed-design context. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves the return structure and operational details implicit, making it only minimally 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 input schema already describes both parameters (layer and session_id) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning about how these parameters are used, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states what the tool does: 'Get trace summary from a parsed design.' It specifies both the action and the resource, and the source context ('parsed design') helps distinguish it from sibling tools like pcb_get_vias or pcb_get_nets. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with other trace-analysis tools, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

The only usage hint is the phrase 'from a parsed design,' which implicitly requires first parsing a design before calling the tool. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over other trace-related tools, nor any mention of alternatives or exclusions.

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