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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint as true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it inspects the 'live' runtime and lists 'documented' APIs, implying dynamic behavior. However, it does not disclose details like performance impact or scope of what is listed.

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 a single sentence, concise and free of fluff. However, it omits critical information about the filter parameter, which would improve clarity. It is efficient but could be more comprehensive without sacrificing conciseness.

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 that the tool has an output schema (not shown) and one optional parameter, the description provides a basic understanding of the tool's purpose. However, it fails to explain the filter parameter, which is necessary for correct usage. The presence of an output schema somewhat mitigates the need to describe return values, but the filter gap remains.

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 single 'filter' parameter has no description in the schema (0% coverage), and the tool description does not mention it at all. This leaves the agent with no clue about its purpose, allowed values, or how to use it. The description must compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 lists 'documented API classes, runtime paths, and methods' from the live EasyEDA extension runtime. The verb 'inspect' and 'list' are specific, and the resource is well-defined. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on board dimensions, schematic editing, or other tasks.

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 implies the tool is for discovering available APIs, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. The context is clear enough for most agents, but lacks explicit usage boundaries.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. Description adds some behavioral context (what data is retrieved) but does not disclose further traits beyond annotations.

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?

Single sentence that is clear and to the point, with no unnecessary words.

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 simple with one parameter and annotations, but the description omits explaining the required projectId parameter. It adequately covers the output but lacks parameter context.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the projectId parameter or its role, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 retrieves PCB board outline dimensions, shape, and mounting hole information, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like board_features and board_stackup.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description only states what it does, without mentioning context or exclusions.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. Description adds list of feature types counted, but does not mention edge cases like invalid projectId or performance. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Single sentence of 12 words, efficient and front-loaded. Could add more context without becoming verbose, but not overly sparse.

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?

Simple tool with one parameter, output schema, and annotations. Description is adequate but missing parameter semantics and does not mention that output schema documents return values. Slightly incomplete for a complete 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 coverage is 0%, and description does not describe the sole parameter projectId. The description implies the tool operates on a board identified by projectId, but provides no format, validation, or usage guidance.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'get' and resource 'counts of board features' and lists examples (vias, tracks, copper zones, pads). Distinguishes from sibling tools like easyeda_board_dimensions or easyeda_board_layers which handle different aspects.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Implied usage is for retrieving summary feature counts, but with many sibling tools, more context on selection would help.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, informing the agent of safe, side-effect-free behavior. The description adds that layers include signal, power, plane, and mechanical types, but this is already implied. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, caching) are disclosed. Score 3 as description adds minimal value beyond annotations.

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 a single sentence (12 words), making it concise. However, it omits parameter details, making it too brief for the complexity of the tool. Conciseness is valued, but not at the expense of necessary information.

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 has only one parameter and an output schema (not shown), but the description only lists layer types without describing the return format or behavior. While minimal, it covers the basic purpose. Given the simplicity, the description is adequate but could mention the output structure or data shape.

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 input schema has a single required parameter 'projectId' with type string, but the description does not mention it at all. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate, but it fails to explain what projectId is or how to obtain it. This leaves the agent without essential parameter information.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'layers in the PCB design', specifying types (signal, power, plane, mechanical). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'easyeda_board_stackup' which deals with stackup. This provides a specific and clear purpose.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It only states the basic function, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name and sibling list.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds no behavioral safety info beyond specifying the return fields. It does not contradict annotations, but provides minimal additional 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 a single sentence of 10 words, front-loading the purpose without any extraneous information. Every word is necessary and contributes to clarity.

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 description covers what the tool returns but fails to mention that it operates on a specific project (projectId) or any context about the output schema. Given the presence of an output schema, the omission of project context is a reduction in completeness.

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 0%. The description does not explain the sole parameter 'projectId' or its purpose, leaving the agent without guidance on how to correctly invoke the tool despite a required parameter.

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 ('Get') and resource ('PCB layer stackup') with included fields (thickness, material, dielectric constants). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like easyeda_board_dimensions and easyeda_board_layers, which cover different board properties.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool mentions are included, leaving the agent to infer context from the purpose alone.

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

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is a write operation but not destructive. The description adds that it writes to a file on disk, providing context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like overwriting existing files or required permissions.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. However, it is overly terse and omits parameter details, so it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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 has 3 parameters (2 required), no schema descriptions, and an output schema (not shown), the description should provide more guidance on parameter usage and expected output. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, making the tool definition incomplete.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, meaning no parameter descriptions in the schema. The description fails to explain any parameters: it does not mention projectId, filePath, or the format enum (csv, json, xlsx). This leaves the agent without crucial information for correct invocation.

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 verb 'Export' and the resource 'bill of materials' to a file, with the specified format. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like easyeda_bom_generate or easyeda_bom_validate, which focus on generation or validation rather than file export.

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 implies usage for exporting a BOM to a file, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as easyeda_bom_generate or easyeda_bom_sourcing. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint as true, so the tool is safe and idempotent. The description uses 'Generate', which might imply mutation, but it's not a strong contradiction. It does not add behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, such as no side effects or rate limits.

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 a single sentence that conveys the core purpose without any extraneous information. Every word is necessary and contributes to understanding.

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 has an output schema, so return values are covered. It has 3 parameters with enums. The description mentions grouping and formatting but does not explain that projectId is required or its format. Given the complexity (simple BOM generation) and presence of output schema, the description is adequate but lacks differentiation from sibling tools like easyeda_bom_export.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the burden is on the description. It mentions 'grouping and formatting options', which partially describes the 'groupBy' and 'format' parameters. However, it does not explain the 'projectId' or the enum values. The schema already defines enums, so the description adds some meaning but not full compensation.

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 it generates a bill of materials for the project, mentioning grouping and formatting options. The title 'Generate BOM' directly conveys the action. It distinguishes from siblings like easyeda_bom_export and easyeda_bom_validate, which focus on exporting or validating, not generating.

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 versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. For example, it does not differentiate from easyeda_bom_export for outputting the BOM.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent. The description adds context about the report contents (what issues are identified), which is useful but not extensive. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single concise sentence (22 words) that front-loads the main purpose. It could be more structured (e.g., listing the identified issues in a clearer format), but it is not verbose.

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 has 6 parameters, 1 required, and 0% schema coverage, the description is too short to provide sufficient context. It does not cover parameter meanings or usage constraints. The presence of an output schema does not justify the lack of parameter context.

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 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions in the schema. The description does not explain any of the 6 parameters (projectId, require_mpn, etc.), placing full burden on the description which it fails to meet.

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 uses specific verb 'Generate' and resource 'BOM quality report', listing the categories it identifies (unavailable, single-source, missing-MPN, etc.). It is clear what the tool does, but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like easyeda_bom_validate or easyeda_bom_sourcing.

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 implies usage for quality assessment, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering safety. The description adds no further behavioral details (e.g., data freshness, rate limits). No contradiction exists.

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 a single sentence that efficiently states the tool's function and key constraints, with no unnecessary words.

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 presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose for a read-only operation. However, it could better differentiate from siblings and add more guidance on supplier selection.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning for parameters. It only hints at 'suppliers' usage but does not explain 'projectId' or provide format/constraints for either parameter, leaving gaps.

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 specifies the verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'pricing and availability information for all parts in the project BOM from specified suppliers', clearly distinguishing it from other BOM-related siblings like export or generate.

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 implies use for sourcing data with optional supplier filtering. While no explicit alternatives are mentioned, the context is clear and the name differentiates it from other BOM operations.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it identifies missing, obsolete, or alternate parts, which is behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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?

A single, clear sentence that front-loads the action and purpose. No extraneous words.

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 simple tool (one parameter, read-only) and presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's function without needing to detail return values.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the 'projectId' parameter format or meaning. While the parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, the description should compensate for the lack of schema details.

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 verb 'validate' and the resource 'project BOM' against LCSC inventory, and specifies the purpose (identify missing, obsolete, or alternate parts). This distinguishes it from siblings like easyeda_bom_export or easyeda_bom_generate.

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 implies usage for BOM validation but does not explicitly state when to use it vs. siblings like easyeda_bom_sourcing or easyeda_bom_quality_report. No exclusion criteria or alternative guidance is provided.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds value by specifying the exact checks (status, version, capabilities), which is consistent and provides behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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?

Single, clear sentence that is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. Every word earns its place.

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 description adequately covers the tool's purpose and outputs for a simple status check. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return values. Some users might benefit from example outputs, but overall it is complete enough.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. Baseline of 4 is appropriate given the schema coverage is 100%.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and clearly identifies the resource ('EasyEDA Pro bridge connection status, version, and capabilities'). This distinguishes the tool from its siblings, many of which are feature-specific or perform other actions.

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 versus alternatives like easyeda_health_check or easyeda_get_capabilities. The agent is left without context for selection in an ambiguous scenario.

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

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint (true) and idempotentHint (false). The description adds that the image is delivered once as its own content block, which is useful behavioral info beyond the annotations.

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?

Two sentences, each serving a purpose: first defines the action and rationale, second provides usage guidance and output format. No unnecessary words.

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?

Covers purpose, tab selection, output type (PNG image, content block), and sequencing hint. Given the tool's simplicity and presence of an output schema, the description is fully adequate.

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 sole parameter 'tabId' has no schema description (0% coverage). The description explains that it 'captures the given tab (or last-focused)', adding crucial context that the parameter is optional and defaults to the last-focused tab.

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?

Clearly states it captures the currently visible EasyEDA schematic/PCB canvas as a PNG image for visual verification. Distinguishes itself from sibling 'easyeda_canvas_capture_region' by mentioning that one for framing specific areas.

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?

Explicitly advises using 'easyeda_canvas_capture_region' first to frame a specific area. Clarifies that it captures the given tab or the last-focused one. Provides context for use after draw/place/route actions, though does not explicitly state when not to use.

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

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses that the viewport moves and that the image is delivered once as its own block. This adds significant behavioral context not captured by annotations alone.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and key limitations. Every word adds value; no redundancy.

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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to cover return values. It covers input behavior, side effects, and delivery mechanism completely for a focused tool.

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 80%, and the description adds no meaningful extra semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., coordinate ordering acceptance is already in schema). Baseline is appropriate.

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 action ('Zoom...and capture as a PNG') and the resource ('rectangular region on canvas'), with the purpose of visual verification. It distinguishes from siblings like easyeda_canvas_capture by specifying region vs full canvas.

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 explains when to use (to verify a specific area) and mentions a crucial tradeoff (viewport movement due to no offscreen API). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like easyeda_canvas_capture, but the context is clear.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=false. Description adds that it zooms and returns viewport, but doesn't contradict annotations. Transparency is adequate but adds little beyond annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states purpose and return, second provides usage guidance. No wasted words, front-loaded with key action.

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 presence of an output schema and low complexity, the description covers purpose and usage well. However, parameter semantics are lacking, which slightly reduces completeness.

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 has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage. Description mentions 'coordinate/scale' but does not explain each parameter's meaning or format. tabId is not mentioned. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly set the 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 zooms the EasyEDA canvas to a coordinate/scale and returns the viewport rectangle. It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning it is useful before calling easyeda_canvas_capture.

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?

Description explicitly says when to use: 'before calling easyeda_canvas_capture' or 'standalone to navigate'. No explicit when-not or alternatives, but the sibling list provides context.

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

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description adds valuable context: results cite sources and are estimates with caveats. This enhances transparency beyond annotations but does not contradict them.

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: two sentences that front-load the key action and list covered topics without unnecessary detail. Every sentence adds value.

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 complexity (14 parameters, conditional requirements) and the presence of detailed schema descriptions and an output schema, the description provides a good overview. It could mention conditional parameter dependencies, but the schema already addresses this, so completeness is adequate.

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 parameter semantics are already well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal additional meaning beyond listing topics; it does not elaborate on parameter relationships or conditional requirements.

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's purpose: lookup generic engineering reference guidance, listing specific topics like IPC-2221 trace-width, clearance bands, protocol routing, decoupling recipes, bulk capacitance sizing, and DFM checklist. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that manipulate designs or perform other analyses.

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 lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No explicit contexts, preconditions, or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent without direction on appropriate usage scenarios relative to sibling tools.

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

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent (idempotentHint=true) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds valuable behavioral context: a visible side effect (DRC panel opens/refreshes) and the limitation that only coarse counts are returned, with specific details only in the panel. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Efficient but could benefit from slightly more structure (e.g., listing the side effect and return behavior separately). No wasted words.

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?

While the description notes the visible side effect and coarse return, it omits parameter semantics entirely. Given that an output schema exists (from context), the return value limitation is described, but the tool's behavior regarding the 'rules' parameter is absent. Incomplete for effective agent use.

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 coverage is 0% and the description provides no explanation for the two parameters (projectId and rules). The agent is left guessing what 'rules' array does and that projectId is required. This is a critical gap.

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?

Clearly states it runs the native DRC, analog to clicking 'Check DRC', and specifies return of coarse per-severity counts. Distinguishes from siblings like easyeda_erc_run and easyeda_rule_check_summary by mentioning the interaction with EasyEDA Pro's DRC panel and the limited return data.

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?

Provides context by comparing to clicking 'Check DRC' and noting coarse returns, but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool over siblings such as easyeda_erc_run or easyeda_rule_check_summary. No exclusions or alternative guidance given.

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

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds little beyond stating it runs a check; it does not disclose safety implications, side effects, or confirm idempotency. No contradiction with annotations.

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 at two sentences, but the second sentence is dense and could be clearer. Still, it is efficient and avoids unnecessary detail.

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 has two parameters with no schema descriptions and an output schema (not shown). The description does not explain what the tool returns or how to interpret results, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand the full context of using this tool.

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 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions. The tool description does not explain the two parameters (checks, projectId) or their expected values, leaving the agent without semantic guidance beyond the schema's basic structure.

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 runs the native electrical rule check (ERC). It distinguishes from alternatives by mentioning that native counts are coarse and that inferred_floating_pins supplements them, but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling easyeda_drc_run.

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 guidance on when to use this tool by noting that native counts are coarse and that inferred_floating_pins is a supplement, and mentions that other categories still need the DRC panel. This implies when not to rely solely on this tool. However, it could be more explicit about when to prefer this tool over others.

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

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

The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations. Annotations indicate it is idempotent and not destructive, but the description does not explain side effects, state changes, or file generation behavior. The description does not contradict annotations, so no contradiction flag.

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 brief (one sentence), but it is too minimal given the tool's complexity. It is front-loaded with the action but lacks structure or details. Conciseness should not sacrifice completeness, so it scores a 3.

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 description is insufficient for the tool's complexity. It fails to explain what Gerber files are, how the export works, what the parameters do, or how the output is provided. An output schema exists but is not referenced. The description is incomplete.

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 input schema has 6 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description provides no information about any parameter, including the required projectId. Therefore, it fails to add meaning beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Export', the resource 'PCB design to Gerber files', and the purpose 'for PCB fabrication'. It distinguishes from sibling tools, as no other tool focuses on Gerber export. However, it could be more precise about what Gerber files are, but it's effective.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool, prerequisites, or alternatives. Sibling tools like easyeda_board_layers and easyeda_pcb_production_review exist, but there is no guidance on when to choose this tool over others.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint true. Description adds no further behavioral details beyond what is stated. Adequate but not enhanced.

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?

Single sentence, concise, and front-loaded with the action. No wasted words, every word contributes to clarity.

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?

No parameters, output schema present. Description gives sufficient context about what is returned (capabilities, profiles, flags, operations). Could mention that it's a read-only/idempotent operation, but annotations already cover. Complete enough.

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?

No parameters; schema coverage is 100%. Description adds no parameter info, which is appropriate. Baseline 4 for zero 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?

Description clearly states 'Return server capabilities' with specific examples (profiles, feature flags, supported operations), distinguishing it from siblings like easyeda_get_feature_flags and easyeda_get_tool_profiles.

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 explicit when-to-use or alternatives guidance, but context implies this is for a broad overview. Implicit usage from sibling names, but not explicit.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's burden is lower. The phrase 'current' adds minimal behavioral context (snapshot semantics). It does not contradict annotations, but neither does it disclose any additional behavioral traits like caching or side-effects.

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 a single, concise sentence that communicates the core function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 simple, parameterless getter tool with an existing output schema, the description is adequate. It could be improved by briefly noting the domain (e.g., EasyEDA feature flags) but is otherwise sufficient.

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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% by default. With no parameters to describe, the description logically has nothing to add. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, as the schema suffices.

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 'Return current feature flag values' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating it retrieves feature flag values. The name 'get_feature_flags' reinforces this, and the tool is distinct from siblings like 'get_capabilities' or 'get_server_config' which handle different configuration data.

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. The description does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. Annotations indicate readOnly and idempotent hints but these are not elaborated in the description.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds value by explicitly stating that secrets are never exposed, which is a behavioral guarantee beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Two short sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded and immediately clear.

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 simplicity (1 optional param, output schema exists), the description is minimally adequate but lacks detail on what the configuration contains and the effect of the parameter, leaving some ambiguity.

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 does not explain the only parameter (include_flags) at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the definition relies entirely on the description to clarify parameter semantics, which it fails to do.

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 verb 'Return' and the resource 'server configuration', and adds the crucial quality that secrets are redacted. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with schematic, BOM, etc.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it's implied by the tool's purpose, there is no mention of prerequisites or conditions for use.

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

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description adds no further behavioral context beyond 'list', which is consistent. No contradiction, but no added value.

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 a single short sentence that conveys the tool's purpose without any extraneous words. Perfectly concise.

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 presence of an output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is sufficient for a simple listing tool. However, the term 'tool profiles' could be more explicitly defined.

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?

With zero parameters, schema coverage is 100% and the description naturally covers the lack of parameters. It adds the note 'and their descriptions' which hints at output content, slightly enhancing meaning.

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 verb 'list' and the resource 'available tool profiles and their descriptions'. It distinguishes well from sibling tools which are all specific actions, making it unique.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the simplicity of the tool (no parameters) reduces the need for such guidance, but it would benefit from stating that it helps discover available profiles.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. Description adds value by listing the exact fields returned and the intended usage scenario, providing behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Single sentence that is concise and front-loaded, listing all returned values without waste. Every word earns its place.

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 zero parameters, full annotations, and presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns and when to call it. Complete for its simplicity.

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?

Tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is complete. Description doesn't need to add parameter information; baseline for 0 params is 4. No param descriptions needed.

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?

Description clearly states the tool returns server health status with a specific list of fields (runtime version, active profile, bridge state, etc.) and positions it as the single actionable status check after connecting the bridge extension, distinguishing it from siblings.

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?

Description explicitly says 'Intended as the single actionable status check after first connecting the bridge extension,' providing clear context for when to use it. However, it doesn't contrast with similar tools like easyeda_bridge_status or mention when not to use it, which slightly lowers the score.

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

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds details about the data returned (latency, runtime, cache, storage), which is useful context beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 a single sentence of 20 words, directly listing the report contents. Every word is informative; no fluff.

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 has an output schema (context provided) and only one optional parameter, the description covers the report's contents and purpose. However, it omits any mention of the parameter, which is a minor 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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not mention the only parameter 'includeRecentEvents'. The parameter name and default imply its use, but the description does not explain its effect or how it modifies the report. The description should compensate for low schema coverage but fails to do so.

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 it returns specific performance data (latency budgets, runtime metrics, etc.) for diagnostics. It uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource, and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on observability; no other sibling mentions these metrics.

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 implies use 'for performance diagnostics' but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., health_check). No when-not-to-use or trade-offs are mentioned.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. Description adds valuable context: requires active PCB tab, returns empty list if inactive, and lists returned fields. No contradictions.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with main action. No extraneous information.

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?

Adequate for a list tool with output schema. Describes returned fields, preconditions, and edge case. No gaps identified.

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 has 3 parameters with 0% description coverage. Description does not explain any parameter semantics (e.g., projectId, limit, offset). Fails to compensate for missing schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'list', resource 'components placed on active PCB layout', and lists key returned fields. Distinguishes from schematic components siblings.

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?

Provides prerequisite (focused PCB tab) and behavior when not satisfied (empty list, not error). Lacks explicit differentiation from other PCB tools like tracks or vias.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds a list of checks performed, which provides some behavioral context but does not disclose additional traits like permissions, data modification (already none), or response format.

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 a single sentence listing many aspects, which is efficient and front-loaded. No wasted words, though could be more structured.

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 complex input schema with numerous nested optional properties and high parameter count, the description fails to provide sufficient context for correct usage. No mention of output or expected data format.

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 0%. The tool description does not explain either parameter (boardData or projectId) or their nested structure, leaving the agent with no guidance beyond the schema names and types.

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 it runs PCB constraint validation and enumerates specific checks (board outline, layer stackup, etc.). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like easyeda_drc_run or easyeda_pcb_constraint_report.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No prerequisites, exclusions, or context about ideal scenarios provided.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the agent knows it's safe and idempotent. The description adds that it produces a human-readable report, which is useful context. However, it does not detail what 'manual review' entails or any side effects, but annotations cover the safety profile adequately.

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?

A single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and purpose efficiently.

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 complexity (nested object with many properties), the description is too brief. It does not explain the relationship to constraint checking tools, what constraints are involved, or how the report is generated. The output schema may compensate, but the description alone lacks sufficient context for effective tool selection.

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 0%, and the description provides no information about the parameters. The boardData object has many nested properties without explanations, and the description does not help the agent understand how to fill these parameters or what they represent.

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 verb 'Generate' and the resource 'PCB constraint report', and explains what the report does (explains which constraints applied and which need review). It distinguishes from sibling tools like easyeda_pcb_constraint_check, which likely runs the check rather than producing a report.

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 implies usage after constraints are applied, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus siblings like easyeda_pcb_constraint_check or easyeda_rule_check_summary. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, leaving room for ambiguity.

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

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) already declare safe read-only behavior. Description adds context about running rules and reporting severity-ranked findings, which is consistent and provides additional behavioral detail (e.g., actionable remediation). No contradictions.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states action, second describes output. No extraneous information, front-loaded with key purpose. Every sentence is necessary and 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?

Description covers purpose and output format but omits parameter descriptions for a complex tool with a nested boardData object and enum gateMode. Output schema exists, so return values are covered indirectly. Parameter usage guidance is missing, reducing completeness.

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?

Description does not reference any of the three parameters (projectId, gateMode, boardData). With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but fails to explain parameter meaning or usage. The many properties in boardData remain undocumented.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'run', resource 'production review rules', and purpose for PCB handoff. It specifies DFM/DFA/DFT focus and distinguishes from siblings like DRC/ERC runs by mentioning fabrication, assembly, and testability review before Gerber export.

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?

Description indicates when to use ('before Gerber export or manufacturing submission'), but does not explicitly exclude other similar checks (e.g., when to use this vs easyeda_drc_run). It provides context for usage but lacks explicit alternatives or when-not conditions.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds useful behavior: returns empty list (not error) if no PCB tab is focused, and explains multi-point track representation. No additional safety or performance details are 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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose and adding behavioral context without redundancy. Every sentence adds value.

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 list tool with read-only annotations and an output schema (not shown), the description is fairly complete, covering output fields and a special case. It lacks parameter explanations, but overall is adequate for its purpose.

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 0% and the description does not explain the parameters (limit, offset, projectId). The description only covers the output, leaving parameter semantics entirely to the schema. This is a significant gap.

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 lists copper track segments on the active PCB layout, specifying the fields returned (primitiveId, net, layer, coordinates, width). It distinguishes from siblings like easyeda_pcb_components and easyeda_pcb_vias by explicitly focusing on tracks.

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 implies usage when track data is needed and clarifies that an empty list is returned if no PCB tab is focused, guiding proper usage. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the context is sufficient.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the tool is safe. The description adds behavioral details: the unit assumption (native unit, not verified against physical dimensions) and the error-handling behavior (empty list vs. error for inactive tab). These go beyond annotations and provide useful transparency.

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 two sentences that convey the core functionality, prerequisites, behavior, and output details. It is concise and front-loaded, though the second sentence could be slightly more precise. No superfluous information.

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 description covers the purpose, prerequisite (active PCB tab), output fields, and a behavioral note. However, it lacks any documentation for input parameters, which is necessary for correct invocation since schema coverage is 0%. The output schema exists but is not shown in this evaluation. Overall, it leaves a significant gap in parameter understanding.

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 input schema has 3 parameters (projectId required, limit with default 100, offset default 0), but schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain any of these parameters or their semantics. The tool description only mentions output fields, not input parameters. This is a significant gap for agent usage.

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 tool name and title clearly indicate listing PCB vias. The description specifies the resource (vias on active PCB layout) and provides details on the returned fields (primitiveId, net, position, hole/outer diameter). While it distinguishes from sibling tools implicitly by focusing on vias, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar listing tools like easyeda_pcb_components or easyeda_pcb_tracks.

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 explicitly states the requirement for a focused PCB tab and the behavior when none is active (returns empty list, not an error). This provides clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not mention alternatives or explicitly state when not to use this tool versus other listing tools.

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

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

Description discloses that it combines DRC/ERC results and classifies them, which aligns with idempotentHint. It does not contradict annotations. Could mention that rerunning is safe (idempotent) but overall good.

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?

Two sentences, highly concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. No unnecessary words.

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?

Description covers the main output format but omits details on required projectId, policy enum options, and use of manual messages. Given the tool's complexity (7 params, nested objects), more context would help.

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 coverage is 57%, but description adds no extra meaning for parameters like 'policy' or 'useNativeChecks'. Critical parameters are not explained, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema's brief descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states the verb ('run and classify'), resource ('post-write schematic QA'), and context ('after generated edits'). It differentiates from sibling tools like easyeda_drc_run by specifying policy-aware classification and output format (pass/fail/inconclusive instead of raw counts).

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?

Implied usage as a post-write step, but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., raw DRC/ERC runs). No exclusions or scenario examples provided.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's role is reduced. It adds that the tool returns 'machine-readable issues' and 'human-readable summary', which is useful context about output format but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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 a single sentence that front-loads key actions and resources, achieving maximum conciseness without filler. Every word contributes to describing functionality.

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?

Despite having an output schema and detailed input schema, the description lacks details about the analysis methodology, issue detection scope, or result interpretation. For a complex tool with 8 parameters, nested objects, and power tree analysis, more context (e.g., 'Checks for dropout violations, thermal margins, and capacitance adequacy') would make it complete.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. While it mentions some elements (sources, regulators, loads, etc.) that align with schema arrays, it does not explain each parameter's purpose, requirements, or how to structure inputs. The schema itself is detailed, but without guidance, an AI agent may struggle to construct valid inputs.

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 uses specific verb 'analyze' and explicitly lists the resources involved: supply sources, regulators, loads, protection, bulk capacitance, current budget, dropout, and thermal risk. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools which focus on schematic, BOM, or board features.

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 implies this tool is used for power tree analysis but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, and given many sibling tools, some guidance (e.g., 'Use after schematic completion') would help.

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

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: transaction is in-memory, document-scoped, snapshot-backed, and does not modify EasyEDA. Annotations show destructiveHint=false but description clarifies non-modification and scope.

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?

Three sentences with no wasted words. First sentence states core action, second adds constraint, third clarifies non-modification. Front-loaded and 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?

While annotations and output schema exist, the description fails to document parameters. For a multi-parameter transaction tool, leaving parameters unexplained reduces completeness significantly.

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 coverage is 0% and the description does not explain any of the 4 parameters (projectId, label, ttlSeconds, maxOperations). The schema provides names and constraints but the description adds no semantic value.

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 action ('Open an in-memory, document-scoped transaction') and the resource ('snapshot-backed schematic writes'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like commit/rollback by noting only one active transaction per document.

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 implies usage before write operations by stating 'transaction for snapshot-backed schematic writes' and the constraint 'only one active transaction'. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives.

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

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

Discloses that commit 'removes rollback eligibility and releases the document transaction lock', adding behavioral insight beyond the sparse annotations.

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?

Two sentences that are direct and front-loaded, with no superfluous text.

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?

Provides essential workflow context but could explicitly mention the need for a prior begin_transaction and validation calls.

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?

Description provides no additional meaning for parameters; with 0% schema coverage, it should clarify 'confirmWrite' and 'transactionId', but does not.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'commit' on a transaction resource, distinguishing it from siblings like begin_transaction and rollback_transaction.

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?

Explicitly mentions that commit should occur 'after its writes and validation gates succeed', providing clear usage context, though no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use is given.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by disclosing that the tool does not expose 'captured primitive snapshots', providing extra behavioral context beyond what annotations offer.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key distinction.

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?