pcb_open_document

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 'switch to' a document and does not disclose whether the document must already be open, whether this changes the active document or opens a file from disk, what happens for an invalid UUID, or whether the operation has any side effects on subsequent commands.

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 concise sentence with no filler or repetition of the tool name. It is appropriately front-loaded, although the brevity comes at the cost of missing usage context.

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 simple one-parameter utility, the core invocation is captured: the UUID identifies a document and the action is to switch to it. However, with no annotations and no output schema, operational context such as prerequisites, failure behavior, and how to confirm the active document has changed is absent.

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 schema already describes the only parameter as a document UUID at 100% coverage, so the description does not need to repeat it. It adds marginal semantic value by clarifying that the UUID refers to either a schematic or PCB document, but it provides no extra format or usage details.

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 and resource: '切换' (switch) to a specified document, and it clarifies that the document can be a schematic or PCB. This is clear enough to identify the operation, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools by naming an alternative.

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 about when to call this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites such as the document already being open in the session. It does not state that this should be used before PCB/schematic editing commands, even though that is likely the intended pattern.

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