eda_dmt_pcb_get_pcb_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reports the return type `Promise<IDMT_PcbItem | undefined>` and states that `undefined` indicates failure. However, it does not disclose side effects, whether read-only behavior can be assumed, error behavior for invalid UUIDs, or permissions requirements. Still, the undefined-means-failure note adds meaningful behavioral context.

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 short and front-loaded with the signature and purpose. The return/failure note is useful and compact. Minor redundancy exists between the signature and the prose '获取 PCB 的详细属性', but overall the text is appropriately sized and every line serves a purpose.

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 is simple and the schema covers the two top-level parameters, but there is no output schema and the description only vaguely defines the returned object as 'detailed properties'. It does not describe what fields of `IDMT_PcbItem` an agent can rely on, and it does not distinguish this lookup from the all/current PCB sibling tools. The absence of usage guidance and return-structure detail leaves material gaps.

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 schema only generically describes `args` as a JSON parameter array, but the description's signature `dmt_Pcb.getPcbInfo(pcbUuid: string)` supplies the essential parameter name, order, and type. This significantly clarifies what must be placed inside the generic `args` array, going beyond the structured schema coverage.

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 states a clear action ('get PCB detailed properties') and resource (PCB), with the exact function signature `getPcbInfo(pcbUuid: string)`. It is specific enough to identify the tool as a single-PCB lookup, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like `eda_dmt_pcb_get_all_pcbs_info` or `eda_dmt_pcb_get_current_pcb_info`.

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 the parameter name `pcbUuid`, which implicitly suggests usage when a PCB UUID is known, but it never states when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention `get_all_pcbs_info` or `get_current_pcb_info`, nor any exclusions or prerequisites, so an agent receives no explicit routing guidance.

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