pcb_create_copper_pour

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It only states the action without disclosing side effects, such as whether existing pours are replaced, coordinate system details, or layer restrictions. The parameter descriptions add some context (e.g., layer mapping), but the overall behavioral impact is not fully disclosed.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose. It is appropriately minimal and front-loaded with the verb and object, with no wasted words.

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 straightforward creation tool with 100% schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It could benefit from noting typical use cases or constraints, but it adequately handles the core functionality. The sibling list and schema provide sufficient context for an agent to use it correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying units (mil) and coordinate meanings (top-left, bottom-right), and layer numbers (1=top, 2=bottom), which goes beyond simple parameter names. This additional context justifies a slightly higher score.

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 '创建矩形铺铜区域' clearly states the tool creates a rectangular copper pour area. It is specific and distinguishes from siblings like pcb_create_keepout or pcb_delete_pour. However, it lacks explicit mention of the net/layer context that could clarify its role among other copper-related tools.

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 implies usage for creating rectangular copper pour, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like pcb_create_keepout or pcb_delete_pour, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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