pcb_get_board_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the purpose and gives output examples; it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires an open PCB document, or what error behavior to expect. The 'get' wording implies read-only, but the description does not explicitly confirm this.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the action and two representative output fields in minimal space, and every part contributes to understanding the tool's 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 simple getter, the description is acceptable but has gaps: it does not specify that a PCB document must be open, does not list the full return shape, and relies on '等' to cover unlisted outputs. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, these omissions leave some important context to inference.

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 has zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter information is needed; the description focuses on the output content instead.

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 states a clear action ('获取工程信息' — get engineering information) and gives concrete examples of the resource scope ('板名、层数等' — board name, layer count, etc.). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like pcb_get_state, though it does not explicitly name the sibling it differs from.

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. There are many sibling tools with potentially overlapping scopes (e.g., pcb_get_state), but no mention of when this one is preferred or when another should be used instead.

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