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

No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'returns' without disclosing any behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, or format details. It does not add value beyond the basic function, leaving the agent without insight into read-only nature or potential constraints.

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 concise sentence in Japanese, front-loaded with the core purpose and no unnecessary words. It is appropriately minimal for the simple resources it describes.

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 lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter documentation, the description is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It omits the meaning of 'prompt', the expected return format, and whether there are any prerequisites or alternatives, making the tool under-specified.

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 only parameter 'prompt' has no schema description and the tool description does not explain its meaning or expected format. With 0% schema coverage and no compensation in the description, the agent cannot determine what to pass.

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 returns a wiring netlist and explicitly identifies it as input for autoroute, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_kicad_netlist. The verb '返す' (returns) and resource '配線ネットリスト' (wiring netlist) are specific and 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 context: this netlist is the input for autoroute, implying it should be used when preparing data for autorouting. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it lacks exclusions.

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