Classify post-write schematic QA results

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with an idempotent, non-destructive re-check. It usefully adds that output is normalized to pass/fail/inconclusive and covers duplicate nets, free networks, and unconnected pins, but says nothing about cost, timeouts, or what happens when native details are unavailable.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and the value proposition, no filler. Every clause carries information about what is combined and why the classification matters.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the overall intent is covered. But for a 7-parameter tool with nested DRC/ERC override objects and only 57% schema coverage, the description does not explain the manual-log path or policy variants, leaving gaps an agent must resolve from the schema.

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 coverage is 57%, and the description only obliquely touches parameters ('native DRC/ERC results' for useNativeChecks, 'policy-aware classification' for policy). The manual message overrides, the projectId scoping, and the policy enum values are left to the schema.

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 (run/classify) and resource (post-write schematic QA) and distinguishes itself from the raw easyeda_drc_run / easyeda_erc_run siblings by explaining it layers policy-aware classification on top of native DRC/ERC output. An agent can tell this is not the same as the plain rule-check tools.

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?

'after generated edits' implies when to use it, but no alternatives are named the way a 5 would (e.g. 'use easyeda_drc_run for raw results'). No when-not guidance or prerequisites are given.

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