Get Wire Connections

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

Beyond the readOnly and idempotent annotations, the description adds operationally important details: unnamed nets return net=null, and the query point must be an exact endpoint/junction rather than a midpoint. This prevents incorrect assumptions about coordinate tolerance and net naming.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the main result, and every sentence adds essential information: input modes, null behavior, endpoint constraint, and helper tools. There is no redundancy with the schema or annotations.

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 read-only query with rich annotations and an output schema. The description covers the two input modes, the exact-point constraint, and the unlabeled-net null behavior. No critical operational aspect appears missing for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 schema already documents all five parameters with 100% coverage, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds valuable semantics by defining the two parameter-pair modes (reference/pin vs x/y), including an example and units, which is not fully explicit in the schema alone.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Returns the net name and all wires and component pins connected at a given point.' It also clearly defines the two supported input modes (reference+pin or x/y coordinate) and the endpoint/junction requirement, which distinguishes it from more generic net or point query tools.

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 states when the tool is usable (wire endpoints or junctions) and explicitly excludes midpoints. It also directs users to get_schematic_pin_locations or list_schematic_wires to obtain exact endpoint coordinates. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with similar query tools like get_net_at_point or get_net_connections.

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