Get PCB copper zones

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 the useful detail that returned zones carry net, layer, clearance, fillType, vertices, and bounding box, but says nothing about limit/pagination behavior, what happens with an empty or inactive document, or raw-data inflation from includeRaw.

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 the resource and scope first and the returned attributes trailing as a compact list. Nothing is redundant with the title or annotations.

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 read-only listing tool with no output schema, the enumerated return fields plus the "active PCB layout" scope are largely sufficient to call it correctly. The gap is limited: the multi-field target object and the semantics of limit/timeout are left entirely to the schema.

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 71%, so the schema already explains net, layer, limit, includeRaw, and primitiveId filters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema — notably nothing about the nested target object that selects which document is inspected — so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

"Lists and inspects copper zones (copper pours/areas) on the active PCB layout" gives a specific verb and resource, and the parenthetical synonym disambiguates it from adjacent concepts like keepouts or tracks. It never names a sibling tool explicitly, so it stops short of the top mark.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance: nothing tells the agent to pick this over easyeda_get_keepouts, easyeda_get_pcb_tracks, or easyeda_get_pcb_net_report. Read-only intent is only implied by "lists and inspects," and no prerequisites or document-state requirements are stated.

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