eda_pcb_net_get_all_nets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention that the operation is read-only, whether it requires any specific window/document context, what happens when no nets exist, or any performance implications. The return type is mentioned as Promise<Array<IPCB_NetInfo>> but no details about the structure or potential errors. This is a significant gap for a tool with no 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 but repetitive: it provides the function signature in English, then states the purpose in Chinese, then repeats the return type in Chinese. The Chinese lines add little beyond the signature. It is not front-loaded with the most critical information; the purpose is somewhat redundant with the name. It is concise but not efficiently 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 that returns an array of IPCB_NetInfo, the description gives no details about the structure of the returned objects, fields available, or how to interpret the results. There is no output schema, so the description must compensate. It only says 'detailed information' without specifics. The windowId parameter is documented in the schema, but the description does not explain which document the nets are retrieved from (e.g., current PCB). Overall, the tool is underspecified for an agent to use effectively.

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 has 100% coverage for its two parameters: 'args' (described as a JSON parameter array in official signature order) and 'windowId' (target EDA window ID). The description adds nothing about parameters, but the schema already documents them adequately. However, the 'args' array's items are untyped, and the description does not clarify that this particular method (getAllNets) likely takes no arguments. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given schema coverage.

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 '获取所有网络的详细信息' (get all nets' detailed information), which conveys the general action of retrieving all nets. However, it is essentially a restatement of the tool name and does not specify the scope (e.g., current PCB, current document, project) or differentiate from siblings like eda_pcb_net_get_all_nets_name or eda_pcb_net_get_net. It is clear but not specific.

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 alternatives such as eda_pcb_net_get_all_nets_name, eda_pcb_net_get_net, or eda_pcb_net_get_all_net_name. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context about when this tool is appropriate. The description offers zero usage direction.

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