sch_generate_from_pcb

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It lists a sequence of actions (read, convert, import, generate) but does not say whether it modifies the existing schematic, overwrites files, or requires specific permissions. It also does not mention potential side effects or errors. The transparency is minimal beyond the bare steps.

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 concise sentence that front-loads 'one-click' and outlines a clear sequence with arrows. Every word is functional, and the structure conveys the workflow efficiently. There is no unnecessary text.

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 performs a multi-step generation task but lacks explanation of the tool's output or return value (no output schema). It also does not specify prerequisites like having a current PCB with a netlist report or whether the schematic is created new or modified. For a moderately complex operation, the description is incomplete.

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 input schema has one parameter 'type' with a description ('网表格式（默认 Protel2）') that is fully covered. The tool description itself does not add extra meaning to this parameter; it only mentions the default conversion to Protel2. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, and the description does not enhance it further.

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 reads the current PCB netlist report, converts it to Protel2 format, and imports it into the schematic to generate something. It implies the output is a schematic generated from the PCB, which distinguishes it from simple netlist import tools. However, the exact output (e.g., a new schematic file, an update) is not explicitly stated, and it could be confused with sch_generate_from_netlist without clear differentiation.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sch_generate_from_netlist or pcb_netlist_report. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., an open PCB document, existing netlist) or exclusions. The intended context is only implied by the steps described.

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