PCB constraint report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the output explains applied constraints and flags items needing manual review, which is useful context about the result shape, but nothing about scope limits, data sourcing, or how boardData is consumed.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the report's purpose and its two-part content (applied constraints, manual-review items) are stated immediately.

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 explained. However, given a 2-parameter schema that is 0% documented and a heavily nested boardData object, the description leaves the agent without enough context to supply the request body correctly or to choose this tool over the constraint-check sibling.

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 boardData is a large nested object with ~40 undocumented fields, yet the description says nothing about what projectId or boardData must contain. An agent has no textual hint about required vs. optional board data or which fields drive the analysis.

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?

Specific verb (Generate) + resource (PCB constraint report) with the output framed as a human-readable explanation of applied vs. manually-reviewed constraints. It is distinguishable from the sibling easyeda_pcb_constraint_check, though the description never explicitly says how it differs from a 'check'.

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 when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. With easyeda_pcb_constraint_check and easyeda_pcb_production_review as siblings, the agent gets no signal about which to call for a constraint audit versus a report.

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