Query a PCB design rule edit

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 genuinely new behavior: results are retained and exist only in this extension instance. However, it doesn't say how long results are retained, what error surfaces for an expired or unknown editId, or why idempotentHint is false for a read.

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?

Three short sentences with the action, the safety rule, and the retention constraint, in that order. No filler and the most important constraint (do not reapply) is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter read-only query tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the caution rule, and the ephemeral-retention caveat, which is the key operational risk. The remaining gap is the timeoutMs parameter and the shape of the returned result, but overall it is sufficient to call correctly.

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% and neither of the two parameters is mentioned in the description. 'editId' is weakly inferable as the handle for the retained edit, but 'timeoutMs' (default 10000, max 120000) is entirely unexplained — the agent cannot tell whether it bounds the DRC wait or the query itself, or what happens on timeout.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: query a retained DRC edit result. The temporal qualifier 'after execution or timeout' tells the agent this is a post-hoc status read, distinguishing it from the mutation path. It never names easyeda_prepare_drc_edit or easyeda_get_mutation_result as related siblings, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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?

'Query a retained DRC edit after execution or timeout' plus 'Never reapply an uncertain edit' together give a clear when-to-use rule and an explicit prohibition. What's missing is an explicit alternative route (e.g. compare to easyeda_get_mutation_result) or the case where no editId is retained at all.

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