pcb_fanout_component

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral transparency. It clearly states that fanout vias are created for all pads and that they belong to the same net, which is useful. However, it does not disclose side effects, constraints, reversibility, or what happens to existing traces/vias, leaving notable gaps for a mutation operation.

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, compact, front-loaded sentence that conveys the action, target, and net context without filler. Every word earns its place, making it appropriately concise for a one-parameter tool.

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 description covers the core operation and target, which is adequate for a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema and strong sibling context. Yet it omits potential side effects, success/failure signals, and explicit differentiation from pcb_auto_fanout_and_route, leaving the context only minimally complete for an agent.

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% and the single parameter 'designator' is already described in the schema as '元件位号，如 U1'. The tool description only references '指定元件' without adding extra meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not enrich parameter semantics.

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 states a specific action ('创建扇出过孔' / create fanout vias) targeting a specific resource ('指定元件的所有焊盘' / all pads of the specified component). The added '（同一网络）' clarifies the net relationship, and the component-level scope distinguishes it from broader tools like pcb_auto_fanout_and_route.

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 clearly implies component-scoped fanout usage by emphasizing '为指定元件' (for the specified component). However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like pcb_auto_fanout_and_route or state when this tool should not be used, so it stops short of full usage guidance.

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