Get PCB airwires and ratsnest connections

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 usefully adds that results carry an inference method and tolerances and that scope is the active PCB layout, but says nothing about cost, performance, or how the limit truncates results.

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; resource scope comes first and returned fields follow. Nothing is wasted, though it is dense rather than structured into scannable clauses.

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?

Five optional parameters with no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (endpoints, coordinates, lengths, inference method/tolerances). Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has enough to invoke it 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 coverage is 60%, so some parameters (net, limit, the nested target object, timeoutMs) are undocumented or only lightly described. The description only implicitly references padSnapTolerance via 'tolerances' and does not explain the net filter or limit semantics beyond what the schema already says.

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 a specific resource ('unrouted ratsnest airwire lines on the active PCB layout'), and lists the returned fields, so it is clearly distinct from siblings such as easyeda_get_pcb_tracks or easyeda_get_copper_zones. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with easyeda_get_routing_status, the closest alternative.

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, and no sibling is named. An agent must infer on its own whether this or easyeda_get_routing_status / easyeda_prepare_pcb_routing is the right tool for diagnosing unrouted connections.

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