eda_pcb_math_polygon_calculate_height

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a number (BBox height), but says nothing about side effects, units, input validation, or edge cases. For a pure computation, this is minimal transparency but not misleading; it just leaves many behaviors undisclosed.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a function signature and a two-line explanation in Chinese. It is front-loaded with the key information and contains no fluff. While it is sparse, for a simple math utility it is appropriately sized.

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 description states the return value ('BBox 高度') but does not specify units, orientation, or any assumptions about the polygon input. It also does not clarify how it differs from the nearly identical-sounding calculate_bbox_height sibling. Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but not complete for an agent that needs to ensure correct usage.

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 input schema only describes 'args' as a generic JSON array. The description adds concrete type information for the complexPolygon parameter: TPCB_PolygonSourceArray | Array<TPCB_PolygonSourceArray> | IPCB_Polygon | IPCB_ComplexPolygon. This is valuable beyond the schema, though it does not explain the windowId parameter, which is generic. Schema coverage is high, so baseline is 3; the type detail pushes it to 4.

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 the operation: '计算复杂多边形 BBox 高度' (calculate complex polygon BBox height) with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling calculate_width, but does not explicitly differentiate from eda_pcb_math_polygon_calculate_bbox_height, which could be seen as nearly identical. The purpose is clear, but sibling differentiation is incomplete.

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 siblings (calculate_width, calculate_bbox_height). The description does not mention alternatives or conditions, leaving the agent to infer which tool fits a given scenario. This is a significant gap given the close siblings.

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