eda_pcb_document_navigate_to_region

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains coordinate origin offset, unit semantics, that it does not zoom, and that it generates a rectangle indicator. It also specifies the return type. While it lacks error conditions or prerequisites (e.g., active document), the coverage is strong and goes well beyond a minimal description.

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 structured logically: signature, Chinese purpose, then remarks with example and clarifications. It is somewhat verbose but every part adds necessary detail (units, no-zoom, indicator). Front-loading the signature helps. It earns a 4 for being well-organized without excessive fluff.

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 description covers the core aspects: what it does, parameters, return type, units, and behavior (no zoom, indicator). It is missing error handling, prerequisite conditions (e.g., active document), and potential side effects on view state. Given the tool's simplicity and no output schema, it is fairly complete, but a bit more context on edge cases would push it to 5.

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 the schema describes generic 'args' as an array, the description clarifies the actual parameters (left, right, top, bottom) with a concrete example showing how they define center, width, and height. It also explains the relative origin and unit equivalence (data-level to mil), providing essential semantic depth the schema lacks.

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 navigates the PCB canvas to a specified region, with a precise function signature and a detailed example showing how parameters map to a rectangular extent. It distinguishes itself from zooming by explicitly stating it does not zoom, and the sibling list includes both navigate_to_coordinates and zoom_to_region, so the purpose 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?

The description provides clear usage context: it navigates to a region without zooming, and units are data-level equivalent to mil. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over navigate_to_coordinates or zoom_to_region, nor does it state any preconditions. The 'does not zoom' note is a useful exclusion but falls short of naming alternatives.

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