List PCB constraint regions

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

Annotations already assert readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description harmonizes with them rather than contradicting ('Read-only; no Region mutation is exposed'). It adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: the polygon is 'bounded normalized', and regions are 'native' vs. pour-derived geometry, which shapes how an agent interprets results.

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, no filler, with the core identity (native regions, not pours) front-loaded and the read-only guarantee trailing. Every clause carries 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?

An output schema exists, so return-format explanation is not owed. However, the pagination and projectId parameters are undocumented anywhere, and no note on large result sets or default limit (100, max 200) is given, leaving a real gap for a listing 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% and the description never mentions limit, offset, or projectId. For a 3-parameter tool with an undocumented pagination pair and a required projectId, the description should compensate for the schema gap and 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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (native PCB Region primitives) and explicitly scopes it against copper pours/zones, which distinguishes it from siblings like easyeda_pcb_fills, easyeda_pcb_tracks, and easyeda_pcb_vias. The listed attributes (layer, rule type/name, line width, lock state, polygon) further pin down the content.

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 phrase 'separately from copper pours/zones' implies the boundary against the copper-fill siblings, but no tool is named and no when/when-not condition is stated. Usage is inferable rather than explicit, which is the definition of an implied-usage 3.

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