Trace EasyEDA Pro net

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

Annotations already establish a safe, non-destructive, closed-world read operation, so the description's job is to add context, and it does add useful output content (topology, pin counts, evidence). However, it says nothing about cost, the non-idempotent hint, or why a pure read is flagged non-idempotent, and no output schema exists to fill that 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 front-loaded sentence that lists the returned artifacts with zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is part of why the usage and parameter gaps exist.

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, only one documented, no output schema, and no annotation elaboration, the definition leaves three parameters and the non-idempotency behavior unexplained. For a traversal tool that may be expensive across many sheets, that is a meaningful shortfall.

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 only 25%: just `net` is documented, while `allPages`, `timeoutMs`, and `includeRaw` have no schema descriptions at all. The description does not compensate — "across schematic sheets" hints at `allPages` but nothing explains the timeout or raw-inclusion flags, which materially change behavior and payload size.

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?

Uses a specific verb ("Traces") with a concrete resource (net) and enumerates the outputs: topology, connected pins, wire primitive counts, and connectivity evidence. An agent can tell this is a deep net inspection rather than a simple lookup, but it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like easyeda_find_net, easyeda_get_schematic_nets, or easyeda_highlight_net.

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 sibling is named, despite a crowded set of net-related tools (find_net, get_schematic_nets, highlight_net, trace_component). The phrase "across schematic sheets" only loosely implies scope; an agent must infer the choice on its own.

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