Get PCB Routing Status

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 real value by stating what the tool reports back (net count, completion %, ratsnest, optional lengths) in the absence of an output schema; it stops short of mentioning prerequisites (an open PCB document) or that a timeout parameter governs execution.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; each listed item is distinct information. The parenthetical "(ratsnest)" is slightly redundant jargon, but overall the sentence earns its place.

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 status/report tool with no output schema and zero required parameters, the description gives a usable inventory of returned metrics. It omits preconditions (active PCB document), the meaning of the timeout budget, and any hint of result shape, which is thin but acceptable given the low complexity.

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%: includeNetLengths is already documented in the schema, and the description's "optional net lengths" merely echoes it. The other parameter, timeoutMs (default 30000, max 120000), is undocumented in both places, so the description does not fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb ("Analyzes") and a specific resource (PCB routing status), then enumerates the concrete outputs: total nets, completion percentage, unrouted connections (ratsnest), and optional net lengths. It does not distinguish this from near-neighbors such as easyeda_get_pcb_airwires or easyeda_get_pcb_net_report, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiating.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. An agent reading a board checklist could guess this is a progress/summary tool, but nothing in the description tells it whether to prefer this over easyeda_get_pcb_airwires, easyeda_get_pcb_net_report, or easyeda_run_drc.

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