List schematic wires

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the 50-item page ceiling, offset pagination, and version-specific fail-closed behavior for scope modes. Return format detail is sparse but an output schema exists, so the omission is minor.

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?

A single dense, front-loaded paragraph that leads with purpose and follows with pagination, scope behavior, and the downstream primitiveId use. Every clause carries information; the only cost is density over readability.

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?

For a read-only listing tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, pagination, scope failure modes, and downstream key usage. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only minor parameter nuance is left unstated.

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 20%, so the description must compensate and largely does: it explains the 50 limit, offset pagination, and the semantics of the scope enum (focused works, page/all_pages fail closed). pageUuid and limit syntax are not explicitly clarified, leaving a small gap.

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 and resource ("List wire segments") and enumerates the returned fields (primitiveId, coordinates, net, color, style), so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not, however, differentiate itself from adjacent siblings such as easyeda_schematic_nets or easyeda_schematic_components, which is the only thing keeping it from 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?

Gives concrete operational guidance: paginate past 50 with offset, explicit "focused" scope is supported while page/all_pages fail closed on a specific version, and primitiveId feeds delete_primitive/modify_primitive. This tells the agent when and how to call it, though it names no alternative tool for the same data.

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