pcb_eprj3_project_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, and the output type is ambiguous due to the use of '或' (or) without clarifying conditions. It fails to disclose any side effects or dependencies.

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 sentence, but it packs multiple output types and input variants, making it slightly dense yet still front-loaded. No wasted words, but readability could be improved.

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?

With no output schema, the description must clarify what the response will include. It mentions file lists and JSON-lines statistics but doesn't explain how outputs vary or what the exact structure is. Error handling and return format are not specified, leaving agents uncertain.

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 schema covers 100% of the parameter description, and the tool description does not add significant detail about the path parameter beyond what is already in the schema (directory vs file types). The baseline 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 clearly states the tool inspects .eprj3 projects and returns project index, schematic/PCB/panel file lists, or source file statistics. It uses a specific verb '检查' (inspect) and names the exact resource type, distinguishing it from sibling tools that operate on open documents or specific actions.

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 when project structure info is needed from a file path, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over other tools or mention any alternatives. No exclusions or edge cases are noted.

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