get_net_connections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond that: a 50-entry cap with a truncation note, and that non-existent nets return an error listing available nets. This provides useful expectations about tool behavior without contradicting annotations.

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 compact yet information-dense: main action, what is returned, purpose, cap/truncation behavior, and error handling. Every sentence serves a purpose and the structure is front-loaded with the primary function.

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 having an output schema (not shown but present), the description already summarizes the returned fields (reference designator, pad number, pad position). It covers truncation, error paths, and typical use cases. For a tool with a single parameter, this is fully complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, with the net_name parameter well-documented (case-sensitive, examples, cross-reference to list_nets). The tool description adds little about the parameter itself, but the schema carries the weight, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Returns') and resource ('footprint pads connected to a given net'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like list_nets and list_tracks. It also states the purpose: showing which components are electrically linked through the net, and how it maps to PCB connectivity.

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 for when to use the tool: 'useful for understanding schematic connectivity as realized on the PCB, or for tracing signal paths between components.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion scenarios, but the use case is well-clarified.

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