eda_pcb_layer_get_all_physical_stacking_configurations

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden, but it never confirms the call is side-effect free, what document context is required, or how errors/empty results behave. It adds only a version note and return type, which is not enough for a tool invoked without safe-read metadata.

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 and front-loads the signature and purpose before the version and return notes. Minor redundancy exists between the return type in the signature and the 'returns' line, but there is no padding or irrelevant content.

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 tool with no output schema or annotations and only a generic args array, the description is incomplete: it omits the meaning of physicalProps, the distinction from current/default stacking configuration tools, and the expected preconditions. An agent would struggle to know exactly what it receives and when to use it.

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 schema covers the generic args/windowId shape, and the description adds the parameter name and optionality via 'physicalProps?: IPCB_SubstratePhysicalProperties'. However, it does not explain what physicalProps does or how it affects the returned configurations, so the semantic gap remains.

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 '获取所有物理叠层配置' (get all physical stacking configurations) and shows the signature returning an array of IPCB_PhysicalStackingConfiguration. The verb+resource are specific, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as eda_pcb_layer_get_physical_stacking_configuration or get_current_physical_stacking_configuration.

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 given about when to choose this tool over the many layer/stacking siblings. It does not state that this is the comprehensive listing option or recommend other tools for a single/current configuration. Usage context is left entirely to the agent's inference.

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