eda_pcb_drc_get_all_differential_pairs

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a useful behavioral trait: a BREAKING CHANGE since EDA v3.4 where the return value type changed to an object, plus the return type signature. However, it doesn't go further (no error behavior, performance notes, or scope caveats). The breaking-change remark adds genuine value beyond the schema.

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 but contains redundancy: the phrase '获取所有差分对的详细属性' appears twice (in the main text and in the returns field). It is not front-loaded in a broadly accessible way (primarily Chinese), and the technical signature plus remarks could be better structured.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must carry the full context for a read-only getter. It covers the return type via the signature and the version-dependent breaking change, which is reasonably complete for a simple get-all tool. Gaps remain: it doesn't elaborate on the breaking change impact (how the new object form differs) or any operational context for the agent.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The signature 'pcb_Drc.getAllDifferentialPairs()' implies zero arguments, which does add slight meaning to the opaque 'args' array parameter (suggesting an empty array), but the description doesn't explicitly state this or elaborately explain either parameter beyond what the schema already says.

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 the resource clearly ('获取所有差分对' – get all differential pairs) and what is returned (detailed properties). The included API signature also specifies the return type. It distinguishes itself from the sibling get_all_* DRC tools by naming the specific resource (differential pairs), though it does not explicitly contrast with them. Purpose is clear and specific.

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 its many similar siblings (get_all_net_classes, get_all_pad_pair_groups, get_all_equal_length_net_groups, get_all_rule_configurations). The only differentiation is implicit via the resource type in the name/description. No exclusions, prerequisites, or context for selection are provided.

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