Get Ratsnest

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to emphasize safety. It adds behavioral context by specifying that the estimate is based on 'current pad positions' and results are 'grouped by net', which goes beyond the annotations. It does not mention potential performance implications or default skip behavior, but these are partially covered by the maxPadsPerNet parameter.

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 with 14 words, front-loaded with the core action ('Estimate ratsnest/airwire segments and lengths') followed by essential context. Every word earns its place; no fluff or redundant information.

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 (0 required parameters, 2 optional, full schema coverage, and an output schema present), the description is sufficiently complete. It conveys the core behavior and source data. The only missing piece is explicit differentiation from the similar sibling 'estimate_airwire_lengths', which prevents a perfect 5.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, clearly explaining 'nets' as an optional filter and 'maxPadsPerNet' as a threshold with a default. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'estimate' and the resource 'ratsnest/airwire segments and lengths', with additional context on input ('current pad positions') and grouping ('grouped by net'). It is specific and well-defined, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'estimate_airwire_lengths', which shares similar terminology.

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 such as 'estimate_airwire_lengths' or 'get_net_pads'. It only states what it does, not when it is the preferred choice.

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