pcb_get_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation and mentions scope ('complete state'), but it does not disclose return format, potential size/cost, side effects, or how the state is structured.

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?

One compact sentence with the key information front-loaded and a short parenthetical list of examples. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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 parameterless getter, the description is minimally viable: it names the resource and gives examples of contents. However, with no output schema and no return-shape details, an agent can only guess at what fields will be present.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the 0-parameter baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to explain parameters.

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 specific verb ('获取'/'get'), a clear resource ('PCB 完整状态'/'PCB complete state'), and gives concrete inclusions (components, nets, board outline). This helps distinguish it from sch_get_state and narrower getters such as pcb_get_tracks or pcb_get_pads, though it does not explicitly contrast them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this tool versus sibling getters like pcb_get_board_info, pcb_get_tracks, or pcb_get_pads. The description defines what it returns but not when it should be preferred.

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