Trace one inferred CRUMB electrical net

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent hints, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: determinism, pagination, and provenance details ('structured attachment, board, jumper, and optional saved-switch provenance'). It also clarifies that it is static connectivity inference, not simulation, which goes beyond the 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 two concise sentences with the main action front-loaded. No unnecessary words or repetition, and it packs in key differentiators and behavioral notes.

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 tool's complexity (9 params) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context about the tool's purpose, determinism, pagination, and provenance. It doesn't detail return fields (not needed) and is concise, though it could slightly expand on usage conditions.

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 coverage is 56%, leaving parameters like limit, cursor, and expectedProjectDigest undocumented. The description mentions 'stable index' and 'paged' and 'saved-switch' which partially maps to terminalIndex, limit/cursor, and applySwitchStates, but it doesn't fully compensate for the missing parameter explanations in the schema.

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 action ('Selects one component terminal by stable index') and the resource (a connectivity witness), with specific detail about what is returned. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it is 'not current flow, path enumeration, or simulation,' which is precise and differentiates it from other 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 provides context on the tool's static conductive inference and explicitly excludes other analysis types, giving implicit guidance on when not to use it. However, it doesn't name specific alternative tools or provide explicit 'use this when' scenarios, so it falls short of a 5.

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