list_tracks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds useful behavioral context: 'Results are capped at 50 entries' and valid layer values. There is a minor inconsistency between 'Lists all' and the cap, but the cap is disclosed, so transparency is preserved.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by output details and filter options. Every sentence contributes useful information without repetition or fluff.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description is complete: it states what the tool does, what fields are returned, how filters work, the result cap, and valid layer values. This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 coverage is 100% and both parameters have full descriptions. The description adds the key semantic that 'Both filters can be combined', which is not explicitly in the schema. It also re-emphasizes valid layer values and the optional nature of filters, providing extra clarity beyond the schema.

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 opens with 'Lists all track segments (copper traces) on the PCB board', providing a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_zones and list_footprints by focusing on copper traces and enumerating their attributes (positions, width, layer, net).

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 gives clear context on when to use filters: 'Optionally filter by net name... or by layer... Both filters can be combined.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the usage context is clear and the cap of 50 results is stated. The schema for net_name references list_nets, which partially compensates.

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