eda_pcb_primitive_poured_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses the single most critical behavioral fact: the call is a no-op and returns undefined. That is unusually candid transparency. It doesn't cover side effects or prerequisites, but for a tool whose defining behavior is 'does nothing,' the essential disclosure is present.

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 compact and front-loaded with the method signature, purpose, and the key remark about the call having no effect. Minor redundancy exists: the return type 'undefined' appears both in the signature ('-> undefined') and in the 'returns' line, which costs a point.

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 low-complexity no-op tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential facts: what it nominally does, that it has no effect, and what it returns. The main gap is that it doesn't route the agent to the working sibling eda_pcb_primitive_pour_create or explain why this ineffective API is exposed, which would complete the picture.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the two parameters (args array and windowId). The description adds no parameter-level semantics, which is acceptable given the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage; parameters are also largely irrelevant for a no-op tool.

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 a specific verb and resource ('创建覆铜填充' / create copper pour fill) and names the API method. However, the actual purpose is ambiguous because the remark reveals the call is a no-op, and it doesn't differentiate from the closely named sibling eda_pcb_primitive_pour_create, which is the tool that presumably does the actual creation.

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 remark '覆铜填充图元不支持新建，本接口调用将不会有任何效果' provides implicit usage guidance by warning that the call has no effect, so an agent learns not to rely on it for creation. However, it doesn't explicitly name the working alternative (eda_pcb_primitive_pour_create) or state when, if ever, this tool should be invoked.

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