pcb_get_vias

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

With no annotations, the description alone carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns a list of vias, but does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation, nor does it mention session requirements or limitations. For a simple getter, this is minimal but not misleading.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose without fluff. It earns its place with zero 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?

For a simple getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it states what is retrieved and the context. However, it does not specify the return format or note that a valid session is required, which leaves a minor gap.

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 schema already describes session_id as 'Session ID', and the description's 'from a parsed design' adds mild context linking the session to a design. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 applies without additional parameter detail.

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 'Get via list from a parsed design' uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('via list'), and 'parsed design' gives context. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like pcb_get_traces or pcb_get_drill_table.

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 phrase 'from a parsed design' implies it should be used after a design is parsed, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives. No exclusions or comparisons with sibling tools are provided.

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