Get PCB component placement and collision report

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; notably idempotentHint=false is declared but the description never explains why repeated calls might differ (e.g., a snapshot of live editor state). The enumeration of report sections adds useful output context but no cost, latency, or document-state caveats.

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, naming the deliverable first and then its sections. Nothing is wasted, though the sentence is purely descriptive and could have spent some of its length on usage or eligibility context.

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 four parameters, a nested target object, and no output schema, the description should carry more weight on what the returned report contains and how the target scopes it. Listing the report sections partially compensates, but the meaning of target, the effect of timeoutMs, and the report's shape/interpreting of warnings remain unexplained.

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 50%: collisionTolerance and boardMarginTolerance are documented in the schema itself, while the nested target object and timeoutMs are not. The description's mention of "collision/clearance warnings" loosely connects to the tolerance parameters but adds no unit, default, or behavior detail beyond what the schema already states.

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 ("Generates") and resource ("component placement report") and enumerates the report's contents: density, bounding boxes, layer distribution, and collision/clearance warnings. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings that also surface clearance problems, such as easyeda_run_drc or easyeda_get_pcb_3d_inspection.

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 guidance at all: nothing says whether to run this before or after easyeda_run_drc, whether it complements easyeda_list_pcb_components, or what prerequisites (an open PCB document, a populated target) are needed. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and the sibling list.

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