List PCB layers

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.