Inspect original source connections

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real context on top: it is paginated, it emits crossings/driver/dangling diagnostics, it expands bus ranges and WIRE mappings via bitTopology, and unresolved widths are surfaced explicitly rather than silently resolved. That is meaningful disclosure of output behavior, though it never states the response shape or limits.

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 purpose is front-loaded and there is no filler, but the remaining text is a dense semicolon-chained stream of domain jargon (pin-on-wire, transparent WIRE, remote-name rules, driver/dangling diagnostics) that resists quick parsing. Compact, but readability is sacrificed for density.

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?

With no output schema and seven parameters, the description should carry more of the return-value burden; it hints at nets plus crossing/driver/dangling diagnostics but never describes the pagination envelope or what a net record contains. Adequate orientation for a complex EDA tool, but not 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 100%, so the schema already documents path, limit, offset, project, workspace, childLimit, and childOffset. The description adds nothing about any parameter except an oblique 'Paginated' nod to limit/offset, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete verb+resource pair ('Build source nets') with a clearly scoped domain object, and the title's 'Inspect original source connections' aligns with that intent. It does not, however, differentiate itself from nearby siblings like gdf_inspect, gdf_geometry, or acf_read_pins, so an agent gets the what but not the why-this-one.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-routing guidance anywhere in the text. The agent is left to infer from jargon that this is the net-connectivity reader, with no pointer to siblings such as gdf_inspect or gdf_geometry that also inspect GDF content.

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