obj_crossref_net

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the tool reads both domains, that a non-empty pcb_only implies the PCB came from an older revision, and warns that Design > Update PCB from Schematic would rip up those connections. It stops short of stating whether the tool is strictly read-only or whether it requires a recompile/fresh ECO data first.

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-loaded with the one-line purpose, then usage, then args, then returns — a clean and readable structure. The Args section restates the single parameter and the Returns block partly re-enumerates fields the output schema already declares, so a small amount of text 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?

For a one-parameter diagnostic tool with an output schema present, everything an agent needs is covered: what it compares, when to reach for it, how to interpret in_sync and the diff lists. Return-value shape is already carried by the output schema, so no gap remains.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: 'Exact net name as it appears in the schematic (case-sensitive)' adds the two constraints (exactness, case sensitivity) that the bare 'Net Name' string schema lacks. No further argument detail is needed for a single-param tool.

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 first sentence names a specific verb (compare) and a specific resource (schematic vs PCB membership of a named net), which no sibling tool duplicates. It immediately distinguishes itself from net-listing tools like pcb_get_nets and proj_get_nets.

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?

An explicit 'USE THIS when' block names the triggering condition (a surprising answer from proj_get_nets / proj_get_connectivity) and two concrete diagnostic scenarios. It also supplies the interpretation rule (non-empty pcb_only => stale PCB), so the agent knows not just when to call but how to read the result.

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