Get Net Connections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is well-covered. The description adds minimal behavioral context (e.g., 'all connections') but does not disclose edge cases like empty results or error conditions, though the presence of an output schema partially mitigates this.

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 a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with no filler. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it easy to scan. There is zero waste, earning a high score.

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 the tool's simplicity and the rich structured data (annotations, full schema coverage, output schema), the description is adequate but not complete. The main gap is the lack of differentiation from sibling tools and missing usage context, which could lead to an agent selecting the wrong tool. Overall, it meets the minimum viable bar but has clear gaps.

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 both parameters (netName and schematicPath) are already documented with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('all connections for a named net'), with the input schema identifying the net and schematic path. However, it does not distinguish from similar sibling tools like 'get_wire_connections' or 'get_net_pads', leaving ambiguity about the scope (schematic vs board).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It is a simple getter with no context about when it is appropriate, unlike the high-scoring example which explicitly named an alternative.

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