Connect Passthrough

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the net naming template ('{netPrefix}_{N}') but does not disclose behaviors such as whether existing nets are overwritten or how mismatched pin counts are handled. It adds some context but not rich behavioral detail beyond the 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?

Two sentences, the first stating the core function and the second giving usage guidance. No filler, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters and an output schema, and the schema covers all parameter semantics. The description explains the core operation, the naming convention, and the recommended use case. Edge cases (e.g., pin mismatches) are not described, but the description is sufficient for selection and invocation for the common passthrough scenario.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description's example ('CSI' → CSI_1, CSI_2) mirrors the schema's own description for netPrefix, adding no new meaning. pinOffset behavior is only in the schema, not reinforced in the description.

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 states a specific action ('Connects all pins of a source connector to matching pins of a target connector') with concrete examples (J1 to J2) and clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly naming connect_to_net as the alternative to avoid for this use case.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use this for FFC/ribbon cable passthrough adapters') and what not to do ('instead of calling connect_to_net for every pin'), making the usage context unambiguous.

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