Get schematic sheet info

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it says the read does not change EasyEDA focus and that aggregate geometry is never invented, though return format and pagination behavior remain unstated.

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 core purpose, and no obvious filler. The phrase 'aggregate geometry is never invented' is concise but somewhat cryptic, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 explain return values, and the annotations already cover read-only and idempotent behavior. It is nearly complete for a read-only metadata tool, though leaving projectId undocumented is a minor gap.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions focused, pageUuid/page, and all_pages reads, which loosely maps to the scope enum and pageUuid parameter, but projectId is never explained and the scope modes are not defined semantically beyond their names.

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 and resource: return read-only schematic sheet metadata. This is clear against siblings like nets, components, and wires, but it does not explicitly name an alternative or more precisely define what 'metadata' includes, so it stops short of a 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 description says the tool supports focused, pageUuid/page, and all_pages reads, but this describes invocation modes rather than when to use this tool instead of siblings. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance.

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