PCB constraint report

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.