eda_pcb_document_start_calculating_ratline

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It states that '在启动时将会触发一次飞线计算' (will trigger a ratline calculation on startup) and the return type, but it omits side effects, prerequisites, or consequences of calling it on an already-active calculation. Minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 concise but somewhat cluttered: it repeats the function name in the signature, includes mixed-language notes, and places the deprecation warning at the end. It's structured with labels (deprecated, remarks, returns) but could be more front-loaded with the deprecation notice.

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?

For a simple tool with no output schema, the description should cover usage context. It notes deprecation and the startup trigger, but doesn't explain what ratline calculation is, why it's deprecated, or what to use instead. An agent might not know when this tool is appropriate, making it 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 provides 100% coverage for the two parameters (args and windowId) with generic descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter explanation beyond the schema, so it stays at the baseline of 3.

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 action: '启动飞线计算功能' (starts the ratline calculation feature). The function signature confirms it's a start operation. It distinguishes itself from siblings like stop_calculating_ratline and get_calculating_ratline_status by the verb 'start' and the deprecation note, so purpose is clear.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It mentions deprecation but doesn't suggest a replacement or explain under what conditions the tool should be invoked. There's no 'use X instead' or explicit when-not-to-use.

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