eda_sch_utils_split_lines

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does expose the return type including the possibility of 'undefined', but it does not state whether the operation is pure, whether it mutates anything, what undefined means, how errors behave, or what role 'windowId' plays. This is partial but insufficient behavioral context.

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 and front-loaded with the signature, but the Chinese phrase '拆分多段线' is largely redundant with the name 'splitLines'. It is concise but under-specified for a geometry utility with a recursive type, so the brevity does not adequately serve the agent.

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 low-level utility with a complex input type and no output schema, yet the description provides only a type signature and a one-line Chinese phrase. It lacks examples, explanation of the polyline format, return value semantics, and window/context requirements, making it incomplete for reliable invocation.

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 signature adds the parameter name 'lines' and its recursive type, but the actual schema only provides a generic 'args' array with empty items, and 'windowId' is generic. The description does not explain the meaning of numbers vs nested arrays, coordinate ordering, units, or how to construct the args array. The schema's 100% coverage is superficial because the 'args' description is a generic wrapper, not real parameter semantics.

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 clear verb and resource: 'splitLines' / '拆分多段线' (split polyline), and provides the function signature and return type. However, it does not explain what splitting a polyline means in this context, what a polyline's representation implies, or how this differs from related geometry utilities like eda_pcb_math_polygon_split_polygon.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., open schematic, active window), and no exclusions. The description only names the operation, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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