pcb_get_nets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden itself; the verb 'Get' makes the read-only nature clear, and the active-board scoping hints at a prerequisite state. It does not state whether an open board is required or what happens if none is loaded, and the return description is largely redundant with the existing output 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns. The 'Returns' block restates information already covered by the output schema, a small redundancy, but nothing is padded or buried.

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 read tool with an output schema, the description suffices: it names the resource, its scope, and the returned shape. The remaining gap is sibling disambiguation (PCB vs project nets), which matters given the crowded net-related tool family.

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 the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The description correctly implies the single implicit input is the active board selection.

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 ('Get all unique net names') with explicit scope ('from the active PCB board'), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as proj_get_nets or list_nets, leaving ambiguity about which net-listing tool applies.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite several sibling tools that also enumerate nets (proj_get_nets, list_nets, pcb_get_unrouted_nets, pcb_get_net_classes). Usage is only inferable from the 'active PCB board' scoping phrase.

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