eda_pcb_net_unhighlight_all_nets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It states the expected return is a boolean indicating success, but it doesn't mention side effects like clearing all net highlighting, potential performance implications, or whether it requires an active PCB document. The Chinese note '取消高亮所有网络' adds a bit more but still lacks detail.

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 concise with only the essential information: the function call and a brief explanation in Chinese. It's front-loaded with the API signature, which is helpful. However, it could be more structured with separate sections for description, returns, and usage, but it's not overly verbose.

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 simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal but not fully complete. It lacks context about the scope (e.g., affects only the current PCB document) and any prerequisites. The return value is explained, but an agent might need more reassurance about the operation's impact. Given the tool's simplicity, a more thorough description would improve completeness.

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 has 100% description coverage for the two parameters: 'args' (JSON parameter array) and 'windowId' (target EDA window ID). The description adds nothing beyond the schema, but since the schema is complete, the baseline 3 applies. The description's function signature hints at no parameters needed, but the schema's generic structure is clear enough.

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 it unhighlights all nets in the PCB editor, using a specific verb 'unhighlight' and resource 'all nets'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'eda_pcb_net_unhighlight_net' (which targets a single net) and 'eda_pcb_net_highlight_net' (which does the opposite). Although it includes the function signature, the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that it affects all nets in the current PCB document, nor does it exclude cases like when only specific nets need unhiglighting. An agent might not know if it's appropriate for the current context.

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