List schematic wires

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds value by disclosing the 50-wire-per-call cap and pagination behavior. No contradictions with annotations. Additional context about primitiveId usage for delete/modify enhances 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 three sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the main action, followed by pagination nuance and cross-reference. Every sentence 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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 params, output schema exists), the description covers key aspects: output content, pagination cap, and purpose of primitiveId. It references checking total count for pagination. No gaps identified; output schema handles return details.

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 only 33% (only projectId described). The description compensates by explaining limit's cap and offset's role in pagination. It also clarifies the output includes primitiveId, which is critical for other tools, thus adding meaning beyond 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?

The description clearly states the tool lists wire segments and enumerates returned fields (primitiveId, coordinates, net name, color, style). It distinguishes from sibling tool easyeda_schematic_nets by noting that schematic_nets alone cannot resolve wire IDs, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear pagination guidance ('page with offset past 50-wire-per-call cap') and explains that primitiveId is needed for delete_primitive/modify_primitive. While not an explicit 'when to use vs alternatives', it effectively contrasts with schematic_nets, implying when to choose this tool.

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