pcb_create_via

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

没有提供任何注解，描述“创建过孔”仅重复了工具名，未披露任何行为细节，例如是否会将过孔连接到指定网络、是否要求现有网络存在、是否破坏性操作、是否有撤销机制等。描述未承担在无注解时应有的行为透明义务。

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?

描述仅一句话（实为一个短语），没有传达任何超越工具名的信息，属于过度简化而非简洁。对于包含5个必填参数的创建工具，缺少参数关系、前提条件或返回信息等必要内容，结构上不完整。

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?

工具具有5个必填参数、无输出schema、无注解，复杂度较高；仅凭“创建过孔”无法帮助代理正确完成调用。缺少关于参数单位、坐标参考系、电气连接行为、错误条件等关键上下文，不足以支撑可靠使用。

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?

输入schema覆盖了全部5个参数，且每个参数都有名称和单位说明，因此基线为3。描述本身没有额外解释参数之间的约束关系（如drill必须小于diameter、net是否必须存在），但schema已提供足够的参数语义基础。

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?

描述“创建过孔”明确指出了动作（创建）和对象（过孔），在PCB上下文中是清晰的。但未与同类创建工具（如pcb_create_component、pcb_create_copper_pour）做任何区分，故扣1分。

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?

描述完全没有说明何时使用此工具、是否需要先选择网络或板层，也没有提供与其他工具（如pcb_delete_via、pcb_route_track）的替代关系。仅靠工具名和参数隐式推断使用场景。

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