Get Net Pads

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the 'every' scope and the dual lookup by name or code, but it does not disclose behavior when both net and netCode are supplied, when neither is supplied, or the output format beyond what the output schema presumably provides.

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 is front-loaded with the verb 'Return' and efficiently conveys the core functionality without redundancy. Every word 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?

For a read-only query tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description is adequate. It specifies the query criteria (net name or code) and the result scope ('every PCB pad'). Minor gaps remain around parameter combination rules, but overall it is sufficiently complete for agent selection and invocation.

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 already documents all three parameters with descriptions (net name, unit default, net code), and coverage is 100%. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what is in the schema, so the baseline score 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 uses a specific verb 'Return' and a specific resource 'every PCB pad' attached to a net, clearly defining the tool's scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_component_pads (pads of a component) and get_pads (generic pad queries) by focusing on net-based lookup.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you need all pads on a net) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternative to prefer. No alternatives are named, and the interaction between net and netCode parameters is not clarified.

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