eda_pcb_layer_get_current_physical_stacking_configuration

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It does disclose the return type and that undefined indicates failure (获取失败), which is useful. But it does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation in effect, what happens if no document is open, whether it returns a snapshot or live reference, or what the IPCB_PhysicalStackingConfiguration structure contains. No readOnly/destructive hints are provided.

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—the signature plus a one-line Chinese summary and remarks/returns labels. It is compact but front-loads the raw API signature rather than a plain-language statement of what the tool does. The concise Chinese line is the main content. Not verbose, but also not structured for an agent scanning quickly; no whitespace or separation between the summary and remarks.

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?

This is a simple 0-required-param getter, but the domain concept (physical stacking configuration) is unexplained. With no output schema and no annotations, the description fails to cover what the returned object means, what 'current' refers to (active document vs active window), or how failure (undefined) should be handled. Among many layer-related siblings, the description does not complete the minimal context an agent needs to decide and interpret the result.

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% for the two parameters (args and windowId), and both are self-describing in the schema: args is a JSON parameter array in official signature order, windowId targets a window. The tool has 0 required parameters and no enums. The description adds little parameter detail, but with no actual tool-specific parameters beyond the generic wrapper, the schema burden is already met. Baseline 4 is appropriate since the function takes no substantive domain parameters.

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 function name and says it retrieves the current physical stacking configuration (获取当前物理叠层配置). The return type is mentioned. However, the description is mostly a transliteration of the tool name—it doesn't explain what a 'physical stacking configuration' actually is or what it contains in a way that adds meaning beyond the name. It doesn't clearly distinguish itself from sibling get_all_physical_stacking_configurations or get_physical_stacking_configuration, though the name already partially differentiates.

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 on when to use this tool versus get_all_physical_stacking_configurations or get_physical_stacking_configuration. The description provides no context about requiring an open PCB document, or that it operates on the current document. An agent would struggle to decide between this and similar layer-configuration getter siblings.

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