pcb_get_tracks

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 says 'query' and does not explain whether the tool returns segments, selects them, what properties are included, how filters behave, or whether there are any side effects. The query wording implies a read operation, but this is not explicit enough.

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 very short and front-loaded, containing no filler or redundant phrasing. It is concise to the point of being sparse, but as far as structure and economy of language go, it is effective.

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 read-oriented tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too minimal to give an agent a complete picture. It does not describe return format, units, coordinate system, filtering semantics, or what differentiates this tool from other PCB query tools. The agent would need to rely on trial and error.

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%, with both optional parameters ('net' and 'layer') documented in the schema. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but because the schema already explains the parameters, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('查询' / query) and a specific resource ('走线段' / track segments), and the optional filters are suggested by the schema. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling retrieval tools like pcb_get_net_primitives or pcb_get_pads, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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 use this tool instead of alternatives such as pcb_get_net_primitives, pcb_get_pads, or pcb_delete_tracks. The description only states what the tool does, without any context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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