eda_pcb_math_polygon_discretize

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states that the polygon boundary is discretized into points, but does not mention side effects, whether it is read-only, performance implications, or what happens with complex polygons. There is no mention of any state changes or requirements.

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 to the point, with a signature, main description, remarks, and returns section. However, the remarks essentially repeat the main description ('discretize the boundary into a series of points' vs 'discretize into point data'), which is slightly redundant. Overall, it is concise but not perfectly structured.

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 and complex inputs (polygon types, options), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the structure of the returned discretized points, what the options parameter does, or how to obtain a polygon object. An agent would struggle to construct valid arguments without additional documentation.

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 description includes the function signature with parameter names and types (polygon: IPCB_Polygon | TPCB_PolygonSourceArray, options?: IPCB_DiscretizeOptions), but it does not explain what these types mean, how to construct a polygon object, or what options affect. The schema's args array is generic, so the description adds only minimal type information without semantic depth.

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 action: '将单多边形离散化为点数据' (discretize a single polygon into point data), and the remarks add that it discretizes the boundary into a series of points. This gives a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling polygon tools like split_polygon or create_polygon, so it lacks explicit differentiation.

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 alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or situations where another tool would be more appropriate. The description only states what it does, not when to invoke it.

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