Audit imported schematic design

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still earns credit by adding substantive behavior: it builds a canonical model, itemizes the finding classes, and explicitly states it only previews and never renames nets or changes components. It omits any note on limits or failure modes (e.g. what happens at the component ceiling), which keeps it from a 5.

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, no filler, and the read-only constraint is front-loaded before the finding list. The enumeration is long but every item is a distinct audit category that earns its place.

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 the description is not obligated to explain return values, and it instead covers the scope, the read-only guarantee, and the categories of findings. For a read-only diagnostic with full annotation and schema coverage, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so projectId, includeInfo, and componentLimit are already documented with defaults and bounds in the schema. The description adds no format, constraint, or interpretation detail beyond what the structured fields provide, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb (audit) plus resource (imported schematic design), and the description enumerates exactly what the audit surfaces: imported net aliases, duplicate/missing references, unresolved metadata expressions, missing values/footprints, and ambiguous BOM classification. It clearly reads the live schematic and builds a canonical model, which separates it from the write-side normalization tools. It stops short of naming which sibling to prefer for follow-up work, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 read-only/preview framing implies this is a diagnostic step rather than a fix step, so an agent can infer usage. However, it never states when to reach for this versus easyeda_schematic_preview_imported_normalization, easyeda_bom_validate, or easyeda_schematic_validate_netlist, and there are no exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is implied, not spelled out.

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