eda_pcb_document_auto_layout

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. It reports the return type and availability version, but does not state whether auto layout modifies the board, requires an active/open PCB document, is reversible, or how long it may take. For a mutating operation this is a significant gap.

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 extremely short and free of fluff, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It front-loads the API signature and returns type, yet spends no sentences on what auto layout actually does, making the brevity a weakness rather than a strength.

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 lack of annotations or output schema, this description does not provide enough context. It omits the operational context (open PCB document, active window), the nature of the result (`IPCB_AutoLayoutResult`), potential side effects, and the meaning of the `args` parameter. An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool correctly based on the description alone.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions are generic boilerplate: `args` is merely 'JSON parameter array in official signature order' with no indication of what arguments `autoLayout` accepts. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, and the displayed method signature `autoLayout()` even suggests zero parameters, conflicting with the schema's `args` field.

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 names the exact API method `pcb_Document.autoLayout()` and the Chinese term `自动布局` (auto layout), making it clear this performs automatic layout on a PCB document. It is a specific verb+resource pairing and is distinguishable by name from siblings like `eda_pcb_document_auto_routing` and `eda_sch_document_auto_layout`, though it does not explicitly call out those differences.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `eda_pcb_document_auto_routing`, `eda_pcb_document_import_auto_layout_json_file`, or the schematic variant. No prerequisites, preconditions, or exclusions are mentioned, so an agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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