Get PCB vias

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 useful context by naming the returned fields (coordinates in mm, outer/hole diameter, layers), which matters because there is no output schema. It omits pagination/limit behavior and what happens with the target object, so it is only moderately informative.

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. It is efficient, though the phrasing blurs the line between returned fields and input filters.

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 six-parameter read tool with a nested target object and no output schema, the description covers the resource and the return fields but leaves the target/scoping object and limit semantics unexplained. Adequate, but with clear gaps an agent would have to resolve from the schema alone.

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 67%, so the baseline is 3. The description's field list reads as returned properties rather than explaining the net or primitiveId filters, and it says nothing about the nested target object or includeRaw, so it does not compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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 pair (lists/inspects) and a specific resource (vias on the active PCB layout), which clearly separates it from siblings like easyeda_get_pcb_pads and easyeda_get_pcb_tracks. It does not explicitly name a sibling it is not, so it stops short of a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this versus related tools such as easyeda_get_pcb_tracks, easyeda_get_routing_status, or easyeda_get_pcb_net_report. It also doesn't mention that filters are optional or when inspecting a single via by primitiveId is appropriate.

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