eda_pcb_primitive_pour_create

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must disclose behavior. It does not state that this is a mutating operation, mention side effects, or explain why the signature returns a promise that may resolve to undefined. No information about permissions or document requirements is provided.

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 but not well-structured; it begins with a raw signature and lacks a clear summary or purpose statement. The Chinese note is minimal and does not front-load key information. It is not overly verbose, but the structure could be improved for readability.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters) and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain parameter semantics, prerequisites, or the conditions under which the function returns undefined. It also fails to differentiate from similar tools, making it difficult for an agent to use correctly.

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 in the signature, but provides no explanations of their meaning or how they affect the pour. With 8 parameters, this is insufficient for an agent to construct correct arguments, and the schema only covers the outer 'args' array, not the individual parameters.

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 tool creates a copper pour outline ('创建覆铜边框') and provides a specific function signature. However, it does not differentiate from similar siblings like eda_pcb_primitive_poured_create, leaving potential confusion about the distinction between pour and poured primitives.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no preconditions (e.g., active PCB document) are mentioned. The description is purely declarative without any usage context.

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