List nets

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two genuinely useful behavioral traits beyond that: alphabetical sort order and the possibility of a large result set. It stops short of noting the design_variant requirement, but that lives in the schema.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then the volume caveat, then the routing hint. No filler; every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool with full annotation and schema coverage, the description covers what is returned (net names, sorted) and how big it may be. No output schema exists, but the returned shape is still adequately conveyed; only the variant-selection prerequisite is missing from prose.

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 100%, and the schema's design_variant description is unusually thorough (including the <Default> alias), so the schema carries the burden. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what is already documented — baseline 3.

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 verb and resource (list all net names in a design), plus output ordering, and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling search_nets. An agent can pick between list_nets and search_nets without opening either schema.

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?

Names the alternative (search_nets) and the condition that selects it ('for targeted queries'), with the implication that this tool is for full enumeration. The volume warning ('result can be large') reinforces when not to reach for it.

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