sch_clear_schematic

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that every component, wire, net label, and junction in the current schematic will be cleared, making the destructive scope unambiguous. It stops short of 5 because it does not mention whether the operation is undoable or whether any confirmation is required.

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 sentence with a clarifying parenthetical. The verb and resource are front-loaded, the object types are enumerated compactly, and every word earns its place.

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 destructive operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials: what gets cleared, in which document, and in what workflow ('重绘前清理'). It could add an explicit caution about irreversibility, but nothing needed to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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 schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on scope rather than parameters, since there is nothing to document for invocation.

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 uses a specific verb ('清空', clear) and names the exact resource ('当前原理图', current schematic), then enumerates all affected object types: components, wires, net labels, and junctions. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like sch_create_wire or pcb_delete_selected, which operate on different canvases or perform opposite operations.

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 parenthetical '重绘前清理' explicitly frames the intended use case: clean the schematic before redrawing. This gives clear context, though it does not name alternatives or state when not to use the tool.

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