Retrieve detailed attributes for all pad pair groups in a PCB design to support design rule check analysis. Use this to inspect or validate pad pair configurations.
pcb_Drc.getAllPadPairGroups() -> Promise<Array> 获取所有焊盘对组的详细属性 returns: 所有焊盘对组的详细属性
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| args | No | 按官方签名顺序排列的JSON参数数组 | |
| windowId | No | 目标EDA窗口ID；省略时使用当前活动窗口 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions it returns a Promise of an array (a slight behavioral hint) and the return value, but does not state whether it is read-only, whether it requires a specific document or window, or any side effects. For a read operation, the lack of an explicit non-destructive statement is a 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 short but redundant, repeating the same information three times: the function signature, the Chinese description, and the returns line. This wastes space and does not add new information. A more concise version would state the purpose once and include additional useful context.
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 tool is a simple get-all operation, but the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a pad pair group is, how it relates to DRC, or what the return array items contain (no output schema). Without annotations, the description should provide more context about the domain and expected behavior, but it offers only a minimal statement.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'args' and 'windowId' parameters. The description adds no extra semantics about these parameters, such as what the args array should contain or how windowId selection works. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the parameter documentation, but the description adds no value beyond it.
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 verb 'get all' and resource 'pad pair groups', and adds 'detailed properties', which is some clarification beyond the name. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_all_differential_pairs or get_all_net_classes; it is largely a restatement of the function name with minimal new information.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of conditions, prerequisites, or when not to use it. The description does not reference any sibling tools or selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.