List PCB vias

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description usefully adds the focused-PCB requirement, the not_available failure mode, and the native coordinate scale. It does not describe pagination behavior, but the output schema can carry return-shape details.

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 three efficient sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by prerequisites, failure behavior, and units. Every sentence adds useful information without waste.

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 read-only list tool with an output schema, the description covers the important invocation context: active project focus, failure semantics, and units. The main remaining gap is pagination behavior for limit and offset.

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?

Only projectId is discussed, and the description largely restates the schema's existing 'Exact focused EasyEDA project UUID' wording. With 33% schema description coverage, the limit and offset parameters remain undocumented in both schema and description.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List native PCB vias, nets and dimensions.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling PCB tools such as easyeda_pcb_components, easyeda_pcb_tracks, and easyeda_pcb_fills by resource.

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?

It states a clear prerequisite: an exact active project UUID and focused PCB. It also explicitly describes the failure behavior when focus is mismatched or missing, returning not_available rather than an empty list, though it does not name alternative tools.

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