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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds context about the output being verified for footprint assignment, wiring, and DRC, which signals production readiness. However, it does not explain side effects, permissions, or error behavior, leaving some behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose. The second clause adds relevant context about verification. It is suitably concise with no wasted words, though it could benefit from a slight structural separation of purpose and context.

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?

Despite being a low-complexity tool, the description omits critical details: what the 'prompt' parameter should contain, how the output is delivered, and the exact meaning of 'verified' in this context. The absence of an output schema increases the need for description to cover return behavior, but it does not.

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?

The input schema has a single parameter 'prompt' with no description (0% schema coverage), and the tool description does not mention the prompt parameter at all. The agent receives no guidance on what to put in 'prompt', making this parameter completely opaque.

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 uses a specific verb '出力' (output) and resource 'KiCadネットリスト(.net)', clearly stating what the tool produces. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling 'get_netlist' by specifying the KiCad format and .net extension, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 intended context ('量産正規ルート' = mass-production official route) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like get_netlist. The guidance is implied through the verification claim rather than directly stated.

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