audit_find_floating_ports

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the detection criteria, notes that it 'walks the compiled / flattened doc tree' so multichannel/hierarchical designs are covered, and describes the return payload. It never states side-effect/read-only status or permission requirements explicitly, but the audit semantics make this materially more informative than a bare 'find' tool.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence, then adds definition, rationale, and return shape in logically ordered short paragraphs. The returns block is slightly redundant given an output schema exists, keeping it just short of 5.

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 zero-parameter audit tool, the description gives the definition, the motivation, the traversal scope, and the return structure — enough for an agent to decide and call it. Since an output schema already exists, the inline return listing is bonus rather than necessary, and the only real gap is the absence of explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter meaning, which is appropriate here since the schema is empty and coverage is 100%.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Find schematic ports that aren't actually connected to anything,' followed by a precise definition of the 'floating' predicate. It distinguishes itself from related audits by defining its exact qualifying condition (net absent from any component pin or sheet-symbol entry on the same sheet).

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?

Explains when the condition arises ('editing leftover' or 'never-completed hookup') and why ERC won't catch it, which gives clear context on when to reach for this instead of ERC. It does not explicitly name near-neighbor audits such as audit_find_unmatched_ports or audit_find_orphan_net_labels, so the alternative selection is only implied.

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