design_solve_netlist_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that the tool is OFF by default, requires EDA_AGENT_HEADLESS_REVIEW=1, parses without Altium or a license, rebuilds connectivity from geometry, and runs specific ERC checks. It also documents limitations such as single-sheet .SchDoc scope and cross-sheet connectors being out of scope.

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 front-loaded and mostly waste-free, with the core purpose and default-off status stated immediately. Some details, such as validation hit rates, are useful for trust but slightly ancillary for invocation, and the dense line breaks make it less clean than it could be.

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 complexity of an offline geometric netlist reconstruction and the absence of annotations, the description is complete: it covers gating, parsing behavior, scope, limitations, preferred alternatives, and error behavior. The output schema exists, so the included return-shape note is a bonus rather than a necessity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the lone path parameter. It adds meaningful constraints by specifying a single .SchDoc sheet rather than a project, which is valuable beyond the bare string schema, though it does not clarify path format or resolution rules.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: reconstruct a .SchDoc netlist geometrically. It clearly frames the tool as an offline fallback and distinguishes it from live-Altium alternatives, so an agent can identify its role without opening the 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?

It explicitly says to prefer live-Altium tools such as proj_get_nets and proj_run_erc whenever a session is available, and to use this only when Altium cannot be opened. It also names the enabling environment variable and opt-in condition, leaving little ambiguity about when to invoke it.

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