pcb_create_diff_pair

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states the creation action without describing side effects, potential constraints (like whether nets must exist), error conditions, or reversibility. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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, which is concise, but it is under-specified—it does not convey usage context or behavioral details. While not overly verbose, it lacks substance, similar to a title rather than a functional description.

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?

Given the complexity of the PCB domain and the many related tools (e.g., pcb_list_diff_pairs, pcb_delete_diff_pair, pcb_route_differential_pairs), the description fails to explain how creating a differential pair integrates with existing nets or routing workflows. No output schema is present, and the description does not hint at return values or outcomes.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions (e.g., 'name', 'posNet', 'negNet'). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies since the schema already documents the parameters.

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 '创建差分对' (Create differential pair) clearly states the action and resource but lacks differentiation from sibling tools like pcb_route_differential_pairs or pcb_delete_diff_pair. It is not a tautology, but it provides no additional scope or distinguishing details.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., existing nets) or differentiate from pcb_route_differential_pairs, which likely handles routing after pair creation.

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