pcb_get_vias

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

The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations and adds no contradictory information. However, it provides no additional behavioral context beyond these annotations, such as scope (e.g., all vias on all layers) or return format details. The annotations carry the transparency burden, so a baseline score is appropriate.

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, short sentence that states exactly what the tool does without any filler. It is optimally concise and well-structured for its simple purpose.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description is complete. It provides enough context for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and invoke it correctly. No additional behavioral details are necessary given the tool's simplicity.

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 accepts zero parameters, so the schema fully covers parameter semantics (vacuously). The description adds no parameter-specific details, but with zero parameters, the baseline score of 4 is warranted.

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 'List board vias' uses a specific verb ('List') and a distinct resource ('board vias'), clearly differentiating it from sibling tools like pcb_get_tracks or pcb_get_pads. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately understandable.

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 clearly implies usage for retrieving vias from the board, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The context is clear for a simple list operation, though it lacks an explicit 'when not to use' or reference to sibling tools.

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