List PCB tracks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds useful behavior: returns empty list (not error) if no PCB tab is focused, and explains multi-point track representation. No additional safety or performance details are provided.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loading the purpose and adding behavioral context without redundancy. Every sentence adds value.

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?

For a list tool with read-only annotations and an output schema (not shown), the description is fairly complete, covering output fields and a special case. It lacks parameter explanations, but overall is adequate for its purpose.

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 does not explain the parameters (limit, offset, projectId). The description only covers the output, leaving parameter semantics entirely to the schema. This is a significant 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?

The description clearly states the tool lists copper track segments on the active PCB layout, specifying the fields returned (primitiveId, net, layer, coordinates, width). It distinguishes from siblings like easyeda_pcb_components and easyeda_pcb_vias by explicitly focusing on tracks.

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 when track data is needed and clarifies that an empty list is returned if no PCB tab is focused, guiding proper usage. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the context is sufficient.

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