list_nets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral context by explaining what the tool returns (pad counts, track segments) and why certain nets like GND/VCC have higher counts. This goes beyond the annotation's binary safety flags and helps predict the tool's behavior, though it stops short of discussing pagination or performance.

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, each earning its place: the first defines the core action and output, the second provides essential background on what nets are, and the third gives actionable next steps. It is informative without being verbose, and it front-loads the main purpose.

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 this is a simple read-only listing tool with an output schema available, the description fully supports an agent in understanding when to call it and how to use the results. It mentions the key output fields (nets with pad counts and track segments) and directs to related tools for deeper exploration. No important gaps remain.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is fully covered by its empty properties object. The description does not need to explain parameters, but it does explain the meaning of the returned net names, which adds semantic value for downstream use. This meets the baseline for zero-parameter tools.

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 ('Lists') and resource ('all electrical nets on the PCB board') and clearly states the output includes pad counts and track segments. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tracks and list_zones, which focus on different PCB elements.

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 concrete follow-up guidance, telling the user to use returned net names in get_net_connections or list_tracks to explore connectivity. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the context of listing all nets is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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