list_nets

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data source (active backend vs. named backend) and the shape of returned data (pin count and class), which implies a non-destructive read. It does not state read-only semantics outright, nor anything about permissions, scope failures, or what happens if no board is open.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, and the resource and scope are front-loaded. It could be tightened slightly, but nothing is redundant.

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 an output schema present, return formatting need not be explained, and the one input parameter is partially clarified. But for a read tool with no annotations sitting among many net-related siblings, the description is thin on selection guidance and failure 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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single `backend` parameter. It does add meaningful semantics: omitting it uses the active backend, supplying it selects a specific one. However, it gives no hint about valid backend identifiers or what happens when the named backend is unavailable.

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 states a specific resource and scope: every net on the open board, enriched with pin count and class, read from the active or a named backend. It is clear what the tool returns, but it never contrasts itself with close siblings such as pcb_get_nets or proj_get_nets, so an agent has no textual basis for choosing between them.

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?

Usage is only implied by the phrasing 'from the active backend (or the one named by backend)', which hints at a cross-backend facade when no backend is given. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, despite several sibling tools returning net lists.

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