eagle_netlist

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses output format ('XML only') and a side effect (optionally writes a tab-separated text file), which is real behavioral context. It omits permission requirements, error behavior, and any rate limits, leaving notable gaps.

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 core sentence is dense and front-loads the netlist definition well. However, the bracketed prefix lists tangential capabilities (CAM, BOM, ULP, scripts) that don't serve this specific tool and add clutter without aiding invocation.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the description covers the output format and file-writing option. But with two undocumented parameters and no annotations, the description does not fully cover input semantics or usage context, leaving it only minimally 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It hints that the design input is XML and that output_file produces a tab-separated text file, mapping loosely to the two parameters, but never references parameter names or clarifies required vs optional/format expectations. Partial compensation only.

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?

States a specific resource (netlist) with its exact source and granularity: 'part.pin per net' from a schematic or 'element.pad per signal' from a board, XML only. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like eagle_bom and eagle_read_design. An agent can tell precisely what this tool produces.

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 usage (extracting a netlist, optionally to a text file) but never states when to choose this over eagle_bom or eagle_read_design, nor any prerequisites. Usage is inferable but not guided, so this lands at the implied-usage baseline.

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