Get schematic ports and buses

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it performs connection validation and signal range diagnostics, meaning the call does analysis rather than a plain dump. It does not say how validation failures or range violations are surfaced, which is the remaining gap.

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 dense sentence with the inspected resource types front-loaded before the active-schematic scope and the diagnostic capabilities. Nothing is wasted, though the parenthetical about hierarchical/global connectors slightly interrupts the front-loading.

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 six parameters, a nested target object and no output schema, the description should say more about what comes back, e.g. whether ports are grouped by sheet, how connection validation results are shaped, and how bus width mismatches are reported. The target/document-drift guard is only explained in the schema, so overall the definition is adequate but leaves the return contract undisclosed.

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 83%, so the schema already documents target, timeoutMs, includeRaw, includeBuses, includePorts and includeBusEntries. The description's mention of ports, buses and bus entry taps loosely maps to three include flags but adds no semantics about defaults or when to disable them, so it is a baseline-3 case with the schema doing the heavy lifting.

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 enumerates three concrete resources (net ports, hierarchical/global sheet connectors, multi-bit buses, bus entry taps) scoped to the active schematic. This makes it distinguishable from nearby siblings such as easyeda_get_schematic_nets and easyeda_find_net, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 named alternative. An agent must infer from 'in the active schematic' alone that this is a read of connection primitives rather than a netlist-level query, and has no signal about whether to prefer easyeda_get_schematic_nets or easyeda_trace_net instead.

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