pcb_get_unrouted_nets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does it well: it discloses that counts are derived from stored connection lines that can be stale and may be over-reported, and that reanalyze forces re-derivation. That is exactly the kind of non-obvious reliability caveat an agent needs before trusting the numbers.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in sentence one and each following paragraph (stale-count caveat, reanalyze, sibling alternative, return shape) adds distinct value. Slightly verbose, since the Returns section largely restates the output schema, but no sentence is wasted.

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 read tool with an output schema, everything an agent needs is present: what it counts, when the count can be wrong, how to force correctness, and where to go for finer-grained data. Nothing material is missing.

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% and the schema only says "boolean, default false", so the description must compensate — and it does: reanalyze is explained as re-deriving the ratsnest for every net that has one before counting, plus the default and the reason you would want it. This is meaningfully beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Get list of nets with unrouted connections") and immediately disambiguates from the sibling pcb_get_nets by scoping to nets that are not fully routed. It also defines the domain term (ratsnest lines) so an agent cannot confuse this with a general net listing.

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 states the use case explicitly ("checking routing completion status") and names a concrete alternative path — obj_query on eConnectionObject — for per-line detail with ends, layers, IsRedundant and Mode. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with pcb_get_nets or pcb_get_net_classes, but the context is clear and no incorrect path is implied.

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