Get PCB keepouts

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 return-field context (layer, keepoutType, vertices, bounding box), but it does not explain the odd idempotentHint=false on a pure read, nor does it mention truncation behavior tied to the default limit of 100. Useful but not rich.

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 no filler; the operation and scope arrive first. It is efficient, though the trailing field enumeration is the weakest part and would be better spent on distinguishing inputs from outputs.

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 annotations and a mostly documented schema this is adequate, but with no output schema the description should clarify what a keepout record actually contains and how limit/default truncation affects results. The nested target object and timeout semantics are also untouched anywhere in prose.

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 a middling 67%, and the description contributes essentially no parameter meaning beyond the schema. Worse, the field list "layer, keepoutType, vertices, and bounding box" reads as returned data, which could confuse an agent into thinking keepoutType or vertices are inputs. Filters like primitiveId, includeRaw and timeoutMs get no elaboration in prose.

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?

Names a specific verb pair ("Lists and inspects") and a specific resource ("keepout areas on the active PCB layout"), which is enough to separate it from sibling readers like easyeda_get_copper_zones. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with easyeda_prepare_copper_keepout, the mutation-side counterpart, so the read/write distinction is left to inference from the verb.

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 only usage signal is the phrase "on the active PCB layout," which implies a PCB document must be active, but there is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus easyeda_prepare_copper_keepout or easyeda_get_copper_zones. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives are mentioned.

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