List PCB tracks

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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent safety profile, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: a multi-point track surfaces as several segments sharing one net, and an unfocused PCB tab yields an empty list rather than an error. That empty-list contract is exactly the kind of disclosure that prevents agent confusion.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, with the segment-grouping caveat and empty-list contract following. No filler.

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?

With an output schema present the field list is somewhat redundant, but the empty-list behavior is useful. The gap is the undocumented limit/offset pagination semantics for a list tool, which an agent needs to page correctly.

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 projectId, limit, or offset. The fields it lists are return values, not parameters, so the three inputs remain undocumented in both schema and prose.

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 and resource ('List copper track segments on the active PCB layout') and enumerates the returned fields, which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like easyeda_pcb_vias, easyeda_pcb_fills, and easyeda_pcb_regions.

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 implicitly scopes usage to the active PCB layout and notes that tracks come from add_track, but it never says when to pick this over the neighboring PCB-primitive listers. Usage context is implied rather than spelled out.

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