Get Net At Point

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns null when no label or wire endpoint is present, and it performs a localized lookup rather than pin traversal. This is beyond the annotations but doesn't fully elaborate on other potential behaviors like coordinate precision or error handling, hence a 4.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and return value, then a single comparative usage note. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler. This is exemplary conciseness.

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 is a simple read-only query with full schema coverage, an output schema present, and annotations covering safety. The description covers what it does, when to use it, and what it returns (including null). Given the low complexity and rich structured metadata, the description is complete.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for x, y, and schematicPath. The description adds no additional parameter semantics—it simply refers to a 'given (x, y) coordinate' and the schematic context. Since the schema already fully documents parameters, the 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Returns the net name at a given (x, y) coordinate in a schematic' and specifies the null return condition. It also distinguishes itself from 'get_pin_net' by noting it avoids pin traversal. This satisfies the requirement of a specific verb and resource while differentiating from siblings.

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 explicitly provides usage guidance: 'Faster than get_pin_net when you only need the net name at a known coordinate and don't need pin traversal.' This tells the agent when to choose this tool over the alternative. It also describes the null condition, clarifying expected outcomes.

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