sch_get_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The short phrase only conveys the basic read operation; it does not clarify whether any side effects exist, what exact state is returned, or any details about error conditions or performance implications. This is thin for a tool expected to inform an agent.

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 exceptionally brief—a single phrase with zero filler—and conveys the essential purpose. It loses one point for possibly being too terse to add context beyond the tool name itself, but it demonstrates strong economy of language.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (0 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the basic purpose adequately but does not explain what 'state' encompasses or what an agent should expect as a return value. It is minimally viable but lacks enriching behavioral details even for a simple getter.

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 has zero parameters, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. With no parameters to document, the description has no requirement to compensate for schema gaps, meriting the baseline score of 4.

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 '读取原理图状态' uses a specific verb+resource ('read'/'get' + 'schematic state') and clearly indicates this tool returns the state of a schematic. It distinguishes from the sibling `pcb_get_state` by the 'sch' prefix and the Chinese wording, though it doesn't explicitly call out the alternative.

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 explicit usage guidance is provided. The context in which to use this tool versus `pcb_get_state` is implied by the name and sibling structure, but the description itself offers no when-to-use or exclusionary notes.

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