List Floating Labels

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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable operational context by stating that it does not require the KiCAD UI to be running, and it explains the underlying logic for determining 'floating' status. No contradiction with annotations.

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 four sentences, each earning its place: main action, definition, significance, and operational note. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids redundant wording or filler.

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 output schema exists to explain return values and annotations cover safety semantics, the description provides sufficient context: what the tool does, what counts as floating, why it matters, and that it works without the UI. For a simple list tool, this 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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter schematicPath, including its description. The tool description does not add extra detail about the parameter beyond the schema, but since the schema already fully documents it, a baseline score 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 with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('net labels'), and precisely scopes it to 'floating' labels. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_schematic_labels by defining the condition that makes a label floating, so there is no ambiguity.

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 explains the relevance of floating labels—they cause ERC errors—and thus when this tool would be useful. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusionary conditions, but the context is clear and the definition separates it from generic label listing.

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