Export named electrical nets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it collapses jumper wires, infers VCC/GND names from DC supply terminals, supports optional switch-state merges, and explicitly mentions provenance/confidence. These details go beyond the annotations and clarify what the operation does.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each clause adds meaningful detail. No filler or redundant repetition of schema info.

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 are already covered. However, the description lacks explanation for topologyMode and expectedProjectDigest parameters and gives no explicit usage guidance. It covers the core behavior but leaves important context gaps for full agent decision-making.

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 only 33% (path and applySwitchStates have descriptions). The description adds meanings for 'paged' (limit/cursor) and 'saved-switch-state merges' (applySwitchStates), but leaves topologyMode enum values and expectedProjectDigest completely unexplained. The description only partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 'returns paged electrical nets' after collapsing jumper wires, and the title says 'Export named electrical nets'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like logisim_export_netlist by mentioning crumb-specific behaviors such as VCC/GND name inference and saved-switch-state merges.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative tools are mentioned. The description implies usage for netlist export with jumper collapse and optional switch-state merging, but does not say when to prefer this over siblings like crumb_trace_net or logisim_export_netlist. Usage context is only implied.

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