pcb_get_state

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description's 'Read' wording is consistent but adds no additional detail about side effects or state changes. It mentions 'explicit unsupported geometry' but that concerns return data, not behavior.

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, clear sentence with no redundancy. It efficiently enumerates the key elements returned without unnecessary detail.

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?

The description lists the content returned but does not specify the response format, units beyond mm, or how 'unsupported geometry' is represented. With no output schema, more detail on return structure would improve completeness, but the description is adequate for a basic getter.

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 input schema has one object with windowId, projectId, documentId, and domain, but the description provides no explanation of these parameters or how they affect the result. Schema description coverage is 0%, leaving the agent to infer their meaning from names alone.

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 the tool reads real pads, tracks, vias, components, and outline in mm, with revision and unsupported geometry. It distinguishes itself from sch_get_state (schematic) and other pcb tools by focusing on a full PCB state read.

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 a read-only state retrieval but does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like pcb_get_routing_context or pcb_check_route. The context of sibling tools helps, but explicit usage guidance is missing.

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