eda_pcb_drc_create_equal_length_net_group

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does state that the method returns a Promise<boolean> and indicates success (操作是否成功), which is basic transparency. However, it omits potential side effects, such as overwriting an existing group with the same name, dependency on an active DRC rule configuration, or failure conditions when nets are invalid. The description is too sparse for a mutation tool.

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 concise: a single signature line, a one-line purpose, and a return-value note. It is front-loaded with the signature and minimal fluff, which earns points for conciseness. The structure is straightforward and avoids redundancy, though it could benefit from a bit more explanatory content without becoming verbose.

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 lacks essential operational context for correct invocation. It does not state how nets are identified, whether the tool requires an active DRC rule configuration, what happens if the group name already exists, or what the boolean return truly signifies beyond basic success. Given the surrounding sibling tools and the domain complexity, this is insufficient for an agent to reliably call the tool without external knowledge. A more complete description would elaborate on prerequisites, parameter semantics, and potential failure modes.

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 description provides the method signature with parameter types (equalLengthNetGroupName: string, nets: Array<string>, color), which adds some semantics beyond the opaque `args` array in the schema. However, it does not explain the meaning of each parameter, such as what `nets` should contain (net names or IDs), the expected format of `color`, or whether the color is mandatory. With 100% schema coverage but only a generic args description, the added parameter info is limited but helpful.

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 it creates an equal-length net group (创建等长网络组) and includes the method signature with the resource (equal-length net group) and verb (create). It is specific enough to distinguish from other DRC create operations (e.g., create_differential_pair, create_net_class) by name and description, though it does not explicitly call out sibling differentiation.

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 related operations like add_net_to_equal_length_net_group, modify_equal_length_net_group_name, or delete_equal_length_net_group. No prerequisites, constraints, or alternative recommendations are given, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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