List PCB vias

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the tool is safe. The description adds behavioral details: the unit assumption (native unit, not verified against physical dimensions) and the error-handling behavior (empty list vs. error for inactive tab). These go beyond annotations and provide useful transparency.

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 that convey the core functionality, prerequisites, behavior, and output details. It is concise and front-loaded, though the second sentence could be slightly more precise. No superfluous 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?

The description covers the purpose, prerequisite (active PCB tab), output fields, and a behavioral note. However, it lacks any documentation for input parameters, which is necessary for correct invocation since schema coverage is 0%. The output schema exists but is not shown in this evaluation. Overall, it leaves a significant gap in parameter understanding.

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?

The input schema has 3 parameters (projectId required, limit with default 100, offset default 0), but schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain any of these parameters or their semantics. The tool description only mentions output fields, not input parameters. This is a significant gap for agent usage.

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 tool name and title clearly indicate listing PCB vias. The description specifies the resource (vias on active PCB layout) and provides details on the returned fields (primitiveId, net, position, hole/outer diameter). While it distinguishes from sibling tools implicitly by focusing on vias, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar listing tools like easyeda_pcb_components or easyeda_pcb_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 explicitly states the requirement for a focused PCB tab and the behavior when none is active (returns empty list, not an error). This provides clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not mention alternatives or explicitly state when not to use this tool versus other listing tools.

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