pcb_get_pads

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It only restates that the tool queries pad information; it does not disclose whether the operation is side-effect-free, what the returned data contains, or how an omitted designator changes behavior.

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 one short sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately concise for a simple query tool, though this brevity sacrifices explanatory content.

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 annotations, no output schema, and no usage guidance, the description is not complete enough for an agent to fully understand return values or filter behavior. It minimally establishes the tool's purpose but leaves key invocation context to inference.

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% for the single optional 'designator' parameter, with the description '元件位号（可选）' documenting its meaning. The tool description itself adds no parameter behavior beyond that, but the high schema coverage supports a baseline of 3.

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 '查询焊盘信息' (query pad information) uses a clear verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling getters for tracks, net primitives, board info, and silkscreens. However, it is terse and doesn't specify whether it returns all pads or pads for a given designator, so it stops short of a 5.

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 alternatives like pcb_get_tracks or pcb_get_net_primitives. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context signals, so the agent gets no selection help beyond the resource name.

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