List Schematic Labels

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

The annotations already declare the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description adds value by specifying the exact scope (net labels, global labels, power flags) and that filtering is optional. It does not introduce any additional side effects or contradict the annotations. It could elaborate on whether it searches the whole schematic hierarchy, but this is a minor gap.

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 two sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded. It uses straightforward language without fluff, and each sentence adds useful 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 simple read-only nature, comprehensive annotations, and full parameter documentation, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly. The presence of an output schema further reduces the need to describe return values. The description clearly differentiates from sibling tools by naming the label types.

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 tool description adds no new information beyond the schema, which has 100% coverage with detailed parameter descriptions including case-sensitivity and enum values. The description merely restates the filter parameters, so the schema carries the full semantic load.

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: listing net labels, global labels, and power flags in the schematic. It specifies the resource (schematic) and includes optional filters, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_schematic_nets or list_schematic_components.

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 schematic labels) and describes filtering options, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or contrast with list_schematic_nets or other list tools. The usage context is clear but no exclusions are provided.

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