eda_pcb_layer_get_physical_stacking_configuration

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the useful trait that the return is `undefined` when the named config doesn't exist and adds the version note (since EDA v4.2), but it says nothing else about side effects, prerequisites, window requirements, or what the returned configuration object contains. This is thin coverage for an unannotated 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 compact: signature, one-line purpose, version remark, and return semantics. It is front-loaded with the action and contains no filler. The signature repeats the name but earns its place by documenting parameters.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description alone must explain the return value and usage context. It only says '物理叠层配置' (physical stacking configuration), which is circular without domain knowledge, and leaves the physicalProps interface, the structure of the returned object, and the source of valid configuration names unexplained. An agent cannot fully know what a successful result looks like.

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 signature line adds both parameter names and types (configurationName: string, physicalProps?: IPCB_SubstratePhysicalProperties), which is valuable since the schema's args items are empty `{}` objects. However, it doesn't explain what physicalProps affects, what a valid configurationName looks like, or where to obtain config names — the schema itself provides no per-parameter descriptions for the actual function arguments.

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 a clear verb+resource: '获取指定物理叠层配置' (get the specified physical stacking configuration), and the signature documents the returned type. The word '指定' (specified) helps distinguish it from siblings like eda_pcb_layer_get_all_physical_stacking_configurations and eda_pcb_layer_get_current_physical_stacking_configuration, though it never names them explicitly.

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 on when to use this tool versus siblings. The description doesn't mention that this is for retrieving a config by name, or that get_all/get_current should be used to discover names or get the active config. An agent would have to infer usage entirely from the name and a one-line Chinese statement.

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