pcb_create_equal_length

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without explaining side effects, requirements (e.g., selected nets), or what happens to existing groups. There is zero indication of operational behavior beyond the basic purpose.

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 phrase, but it does not earn its place because it merely restates the tool name. It is under-specified rather than concise, providing no value beyond the structured fields.

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 that the tool has two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is drastically incomplete. It lacks context on what an equal-length group is, how the operation affects the design, return results, or any operational constraints. This is inadequate for an agent to use the tool confidently.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides; both 'name' and 'nets' have descriptive labels in the schema, and the description does not clarify format, constraints, or usage nuances.

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 '创建等长组' is a direct Chinese translation of the tool name 'pcb_create_equal_length', essentially restating the name. It identifies the action and resource but adds no distinction from sibling tools like pcb_list_equal_lengths or pcb_delete_equal_length beyond the obvious 'create' action.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it is implied for creating an equal-length group, there is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or related tools that might be more appropriate in certain contexts.

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