pcb_open_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'switch to the specified document', which implies changing the active document, but does not disclose side effects, safety (read-only vs. mutating), permission requirements, or whether it affects any workspace state. Significant gaps exist for a tool that alters system state.

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 fluff. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, but lacks structured sections like examples or context. It is concise yet not particularly rich, hence a 4 rather than 5.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is functional but minimal. It tells what the tool does but omits when to use it (e.g., before performing operations on a specific document) and any related details. In the context of many siblings, more workflow guidance would improve completeness.

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 sole parameter 'uuid' has a schema description '文档 UUID' (document UUID). Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra semantic detail beyond the schema, such as where to find the UUID or any format constraints, so it stays at baseline.

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 '切换到指定文档' (switch to specified document) and specifies it applies to schematics or PCBs. This is a specific verb+resource statement that distinguishes it from other tools. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like pcb_select_eda_window, but the intent is 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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks any context on prerequisites, workflow placement, or situations where other tools might be more appropriate. The description is purely imperative with no contextual advice.

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