sch_create_junction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only states the placement action and does not disclose coordinate units, behavior if a junction already exists, whether a wire must be present, or what the outcome is. This leaves important behavioral context undocumented.

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 short sentence containing no redundant words or filler. It is appropriately concise for a simple two-parameter creation tool.

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?

The tool is simple with only two required coordinates and no output schema, so the description does not need to be lengthy. However, it omits coordinate units and any validity conditions for placing a junction, which would help an agent invoke it correctly. The description is minimally adequate but leaves a few contextual gaps.

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%: both x and y have 'X 坐标' and 'Y 坐标' descriptions. The tool description itself adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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: '在原理图放置连接点（junction）' — 'place a junction in the schematic'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like sch_create_component, sch_create_wire, and sch_create_netlabel by naming the exact object being created.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or name related tools like sch_create_wire or sch_create_netlabel. The usage context is only implied by the action itself, not explained.

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