eda_pcb_primitive_arc_create

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

There are no annotations, and the description only includes a function signature and a return type. It does not disclose side effects, error handling, coordinate system assumptions, or any behavioral constraints beyond the bare signature. The agent gets no insight into what happens when the operation is invoked.

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 terse, consisting of a signature and a one-line Chinese phrase. It is under-specified rather than concise; there is no structuring of information to help the agent parse the main purpose or usage, and it lacks any explanatory prose to supplement the signature.

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?

This is a complex creation tool with several optional parameters and no output schema. The description omits critical context such as coordinate system, units, layer semantics, interactive mode behavior, and the meaning of the primitiveLock parameter. An agent cannot correctly invoke this tool without significant external knowledge.

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 lists parameter names and types (net, layer, startX, startY, endX, endY, arcAngle, etc.) but does not explain their meaning, units, or relationships. The input schema only has generic 'args' and 'windowId' fields, so the signature adds some semantic structure, but it fails to convey what each parameter represents (e.g., arcAngle units, coordinate origin).

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 the verb 'create' with the resource 'arc line' (创建圆弧线), which clearly identifies the operation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like eda_pcb_primitive_arc_delete, arc_get, and arc_modify by implying the creation action. The purpose is unambiguous even without additional context.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., active PCB document), or context for using arc creation vs. other primitives. The agent is left without any usage direction.

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