pcb_create_diff_pair

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that a differential pair is created, omitting any behavior around validation, failure modes, effects on existing objects, or requirements for the positive and negative nets. This is less informative than even minimally acceptable create-operation descriptions.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. A single restatement of the tool's name lacks the structured, front-loaded detail expected of a helpful tool description.

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 create tool with three required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should provide more context about expected input relationships, possible errors, and how the created diff pair behaves. The current description leaves the agent to infer preconditions and postconditions, making it incomplete for confident invocation.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters ('name', 'posNet', 'negNet') with clear Chinese descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema fully covers parameter semantics.

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 '创建差分对' simply restates the tool name pcb_create_diff_pair ('create differential pair'), providing no additional specificity beyond the name itself. It does not distinguish the tool from related sibling tools such as pcb_create_equal_length or pcb_delete_diff_pair.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as pcb_list_diff_pairs, pcb_delete_diff_pair, or pcb_create_equal_length. There is no mention of prerequisites like whether the referenced nets must already exist or how this differs from creating equal-length constraints.

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