pcb_list_equal_lengths

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. '列出' implies a read-only listing, but the description does not explain the return format, scope, or what constitutes an equal-length group. Transparency is minimal.

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, direct sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a zero-argument list 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?

For a zero-parameter list operation, this is minimally viable: it names the action and resource. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it does not describe the returned structure or the exact scope of '等长组', leaving some ambiguity.

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?

There are zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the 0-parameter baseline of 4 applies. No parameter clarification is needed because none exist.

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 uses a specific verb '列出' (list) and a clear resource '所有等长组' (all equal-length groups), which distinguishes it from sibling create/delete equal-length tools and from pcb_list_diff_pairs. The action and target are unambiguous.

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 for when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state prerequisites such as an open PCB document, nor does it contrast with pcb_list_diff_pairs or other list operations. Usage context is only implied by the name.

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