eda_sys_tool_pcb_comparison

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the return type (Promise<ISYS_PcbComparisonResponse>) and success/error handling, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, requires specific permissions, or any behavioral traits like rate limits or state changes. The version note (ADD since EDA v4.2) is not behavioral.

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 the signature front-loaded and only a few extra lines for version and return notes. There is minimal fluff, but the Chinese text may reduce clarity for non-Chinese readers. Structurally it is efficient.

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?

The tool is complex (multiple input types, options, and a non-trivial response), yet the description only provides the signature and a high-level success/error note. It does not explain what the comparison result contains, how options affect behavior, or any operational context. With no output schema, this is a significant gap.

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 adds the full type signature for pcb1, pcb2, and options with enums and types, which the generic input schema (only args array and windowId) does not provide. However, it only lists parameter names and types without explaining expected values, units, or the meaning of options like deviation or comparisonSize. This partially compensates for the schema's low coverage but lacks semantic depth.

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 performs PCB comparison (PCB 对比) with a specific function name pcbComparison. It distinguishes from sibling comparison tools (netlist, schematic) by naming 'PCB', though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them. The verb-resource pairing is clear.

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 alternative comparison tools like eda_sys_tool_netlist_comparison or eda_sys_tool_schematic_comparison. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or conditions that would make this tool the right choice.

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