Check PCB constraints

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully enumerates the validation categories, but does not say what a failing check does, whether it merely reports or blocks, or how results are surfaced, so it adds limited 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by a scannable list of checks. No filler, though the long enumeration is dense rather than informative.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but with 0% schema coverage on a large nested input object the description is far too thin on inputs. For a tool of this complexity it should explain the boardData contract.

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 tool takes a complex nested boardData object with dozens of undocumented fields plus projectId. The description names validation categories that only loosely imply some fields but explains no parameter meaning or required structure, so it fails to compensate for the coverage 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?

States a specific verb ('Run ... validation') and resource ('PCB constraint') and enumerates exactly what is checked. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like easyeda_pcb_constraint_report or easyeda_drc_run, leaving an agent to guess which validation entry point to pick.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus easyeda_drc_run, easyeda_rule_check_summary, or easyeda_pcb_constraint_report, nor any stated prerequisites. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name.

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