Group selected nets into an equal-length set to enforce matched trace lengths. Provide a group name and network list to align trace lengths for PCB routings.
创建等长组
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | 等长组名称 | |
| nets | Yes | 网络名称列表 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.0Does 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 only states that an equal-length group is created, but does not mention side effects, whether existing groups are replaced, validation behavior, or any other operational consequences.
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 extremely short and free of filler, but it is under-specified for the decision an agent must make. It is concise without being adequately informative.
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 schema covers parameters, but there are no annotations, no output schema, and no usage or behavioral context. An agent has little information about what actually happens when the equal-length group is created or how this fits with related tools.
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 input schema already documents both 'name' and 'nets'. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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' ('Create equal-length group') clearly identifies a specific action and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from related siblings such as pcb_create_diff_pair or pcb_list_equal_lengths.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many related alternatives. There is no stated context, prerequisite, or exclusion to help an agent choose correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.