List PCB vias

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable non-obvious traits: it requires a focused PCB tab, returns an empty list rather than an error when no tab is active, and caveats that the hole/outer diameter unit is not independently verified against a physical dimension. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core action and returned fields, then adds prerequisite and caveat information. It is fairly dense but every element serves a purpose. The parenthetical caveat about the diameter unit is a bit long but still earns its place by flagging a data-quality limitation.

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 description need not detail return values, yet it helpfully enumerates them. However, for a tool requiring a projectId and offering limit/offset, the absence of any parameter guidance and the lack of explicit tie between the 'active PCB layout' and the projectId leave an important gap. The behavioral caveats are good, but the description is incomplete on how to invoke the tool 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 mentions none of the three input parameters (projectId, limit, offset). It only lists output fields, leaving the agent with no information about the required projectId or how pagination via limit/offset behaves. The description does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 states a specific verb (List) and resource (vias on the active PCB layout), and it enumerates the returned fields. It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling PCB list tools such as easyeda_pcb_tracks, easyeda_pcb_components, and easyeda_pcb_fills, which cover different primitives.

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 only usage-relevant statement is a prerequisite (focused PCB tab) and an edge-case behavior (empty list instead of error). There is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any condition or exclusion that would help an agent decide between this and other PCB inspection tools.

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