Inspect PCB Board Outline

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by naming the computed outputs (perimeter, area, loop closure status), which tells the agent this is an analysis call rather than a raw dump. It does not disclose units, behavior when no outline exists, or the meaning of a non-closed loop.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with a clear verb and a parenthetical enumerating the bounding box fields; nothing is padded or repeated. The enumeration is long but each item carries information about the return payload, so it earns its space.

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, the description correctly takes on the burden of listing returned fields, and it does so thoroughly. However, for an inspection tool with a nested target object and four parameters, it omits units, failure modes (no outline present, wrong document type), and the implication of non-idempotent reads, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 coverage is 75%, with includeRaw and includeSegments described in the schema and "Expected active PCB target" documented on the nested object, so the schema does most of the work. The description's mention of "segments" loosely signals the includeSegments toggle but adds no syntax or format detail, and target/timeoutMs receive no clarification. Baseline 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 names a specific verb ("Inspects") and resource ("board outline boundary" on the active PCB), and enumerates exactly what is reported: bounding box fields, perimeter, area, loop closure, segments. That is far more concrete than a tautology. It stops short of distinguishing itself from the sibling easyeda_prepare_board_outline, which the agent must infer is the mutation counterpart.

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 explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of the adjacent easyeda_prepare_board_outline tool that an agent would likely confuse this with. The only usage signal is the phrase "on the active PCB," which implies an active-document requirement but does not tell the agent when to pick this over alternatives.

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