pcb_get_state

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

No annotations are available, so the description must carry the full transparency burden. It only says '获取' (retrieve), implying read-only behavior, but it does not disclose response shape, whether this is a snapshot or live state, performance implications, or safety guarantees beyond the read-only implication.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the purpose and scope. Every part contributes meaning, and there is no redundant wording.

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 should clearly define what 'complete state' includes; it lists components, nets, and board outline but uses '等' (etc.), leaving the full contents ambiguous. Since this is a simple zero-parameter getter, the level of detail is adequate but not rich enough for a fully self-describing tool.

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 tool accepts zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for any missing parameter documentation.

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 retrieves the full PCB state, including components, nets, and board outline. It is distinct from narrower siblings like pcb_get_tracks or pcb_get_board_info because it is explicitly a comprehensive snapshot, though it does not mention those alternatives.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus specific getters such as pcb_get_tracks, pcb_get_pads, or pcb_get_board_info. The word '完整' implies a general-purpose query, but no explicit when-to-use or exclusions are provided.

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