Preview imported schematic normalization

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by detailing the output components (plan ID, model hash, operations, validation gates, warnings, blockers) and reaffirming the read-only nature. No contradiction.

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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the key information about the tool's function and output. The first sentence is dense but clear; the second is a crisp safety note. No redundant phrases.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters and an output schema exists, the description covers the output well but lacks guidance on input parameters like componentLimit or normalizeNetNames. For a preview tool that may be exploratory, more clarity on how parameters affect the plan would improve completeness.

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 only 17%, and the description does not elaborate on any parameters beyond what the schema provides. With low coverage, the description should compensate, but it offers no param-specific guidance, leaving the agent to rely on the sparse 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 clearly states the tool reads the live schematic and produces a normalization plan, with specifics like 'deterministic', 'read-only', and a list of outputs. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing previewing normalization without writing, contrasting with write 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?

The description implies the tool should be used to preview normalization before committing, and explicitly states it never writes, indicating safe usage. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or comparison to related tools like 'easyeda_schematic_audit_imported_design'.

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