eda_pcb_math_polygon_split_polygon

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

No annotations are present, and the description does not state whether the operation is pure, whether it mutates inputs, what units/coordinate system are used, or what happens with invalid complex polygons. It only exposes a function signature, which is not enough behavioral disclosure for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 scannable with the signature front-loaded, but the Chinese gloss and the 'returns' line largely duplicate the signature. It is concise in size but not every line adds new information; there is no room for needed elaboration because the content is repetitive.

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, and the description leaves out the shape of IPCB_ComplexPolygon, the definition/algorithm of 'split', edge cases, and any difference from sibling polygon operations. An agent could not confidently construct a valid call or interpret the result from this description alone.

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's 100% coverage is shallow: args is just 'JSON parameter array in official signature order' and items is empty. The description adds the type expectation (Array<IPCB_ComplexPolygon>) and return type, which is useful, but it does not explain the structure of IPCB_ComplexPolygon or the meaning of windowId beyond the schema.

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 signature says pcb_MathPolygon.splitPolygon takes an array of complex polygons and returns an array of polygons, so an agent can see the verb and resource. But the Chinese gloss '拆分单多边形' is terse and slightly ambiguous about whether it splits one polygon or an array of complex polygons, and it does not differentiate this from sibling math-polygon utilities beyond the name.

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 about when to call this tool versus alternatives like eda_pcb_math_polygon_discretize or create_polygon, and no mention of prerequisites or expected input sources. The intended use is only implied by the name and signature, so an agent is left to infer context.

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