pcb_get_tracks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states a read-like query action with no mention of output format, filtering semantics, or any behavioral traits. The optional filters (net, layer) are implied but not behaviorally explained.

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 only six Chinese characters with zero waste, but this brevity is closer to under-specification than deliberate conciseness. For a tool with only two optional parameters, the minimal length is defensible, yet it provides insufficient value to the agent.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must compensate. A query tool with optional net/layer filters should explain what tracks are returned (e.g., all tracks if no filter, list format, endpoints). The one-line description is inadequate for a tool operating in a complex PCB context.

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% - both 'net' and 'layer' parameters have descriptions in the schema. Per the baseline for high coverage, the description need not add parameter detail, and it adds nothing beyond the schema. The schema already documents the optional filters adequately.

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 '查询走线段' (query track segments) states a clear verb (query) and resource (track segments). However, it is extremely terse and does not distinguish this from sibling get-type tools like pcb_get_pads, pcb_get_net_primitives, or pcb_get_silkscreens, all of which are similar query operations.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling query tools (get_pads, get_net_primitives, get_netlist, get_silkscreens), the absence of any differentiation or contextual usage hints leaves the agent guessing.

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