Export EasyEDA Pro PDF

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds only "through the extension", hinting at a required bridge but never confirming it. It does not say where the PDF is written, whether an existing file is overwritten, whether a UI dialog blocks the call, or why idempotentHint is false despite the read-only hint. For a long-running export with a tunable timeout, these omissions matter.

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?

One clean, front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is good structural economy. However, brevity here comes at the cost of under-specification rather than serving clarity, so it does not earn more than a mid score.

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?

With no output schema, no annotation coverage of side effects, and zero parameter documentation, the description is too thin for the tool's complexity. An agent cannot tell from this text what it will receive back (a file path? bytes?), whether the export is synchronous, or how scope and timeout interact.

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 description coverage is 0% across three parameters, so the description carries the full burden and delivers nothing: no explanation of what "auto" scope does, no statement of the fileName format or default naming, and no guidance on when to raise timeoutMs. The schema's enum and defaults provide mechanical structure, but the semantics of each argument remain undefined.

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 definition states a specific verb ("Exports") and resource ("a PDF") and names the source explicitly ("the active EasyEDA Pro document"), which distinguishes it from the many sibling tools that are also exports (gerber, image, dxf, bom, netlist). It stops short of naming which export sibling handles which case, but the PDF target is unambiguous.

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?

There is no statement of when to pick this over easyeda_export_image, easyeda_export_dxf or the other export siblings, and no prerequisites such as the extension needing to be connected. The scope enum (pcb/schematic/auto) is never explained in terms of which one to choose, leaving the selection of key arguments to inference.

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