EasyEDA Pro live status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that the call reports active document and 'capability information', but the latter is left undefined, and nothing is said about latency, failure modes when the extension is disconnected, or whether it errors versus returning a negative status.

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. The only weakness is the vague noun phrase 'capability information', which does little work but costs few tokens.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of conveying what comes back, and 'active document/capability information' is only a gesture at the return payload. For a zero-parameter status probe this is close to adequate, but an agent still cannot predict the response shape or how a disconnected extension is reported.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case. The description correctly implies a parameterless probe and does not invent inputs, so nothing more is needed here.

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 gives a specific verb-and-resource pair: it checks extension connectivity and reports active document/capability information. This is clearly distinct from data-query siblings like easyeda_get_context or easyeda_get_selection, though it never names an alternative such as easyeda_doctor, which likely overlaps in diagnostic intent.

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?

The implied usage — verifying the extension is connected before relying on other EasyEDA tools — is reasonably obvious from the phrasing, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no precondition guidance, and no indication of when easyeda_doctor or easyeda_get_context would be preferred instead.

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