Verify schematic connections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description reinforces the read-only nature and adds context about checking pin/net and passive paths. It does not contradict annotations and adds behavioral context about the scope (active schematic).

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?

The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the key action ('runs generic read-only connection assertions'). It is concise and avoids verbosity, though it could include more details about parameter interpretations without becoming bloated.

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?

Given the complexity (5 parameters, nested objects in schema, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return value format (e.g., pass/fail list) or the various check types (pin_connected, path_exists, etc.). The description leaves significant gaps for an agent to correctly invoke and interpret the tool.

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 20% (only checks array has a minimal description). The tool description mentions 'pin/net checks and passive paths', which loosely hints at the checks parameter but does not explain other parameters like maxHops, allPages, timeoutMs, or includeRaw. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 clearly states it runs 'generic read-only connection assertions' on the active schematic, specifying pin/net checks and passive paths. This distinguishes it from siblings like easyeda_trace_net (trace a net) or easyeda_find_unconnected_pins (find unconnected pins) by being a general assertion tool.

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 description implies usage for general connectivity verification but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like easyeda_trace_net or easyeda_validate_schematic_area. No exclusions or when-not-to-use are mentioned.

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