proj_export_netlist

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does useful work: it discloses that single-pin and unnamed nets are included (a faithful dump, not a routed-only view) and what the call returns. It omits the write semantics that matter most for a file-producing tool — whether an existing output_path is overwritten, whether directories are created, and any failure behavior.

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-loads the action and format list, then documents args and return value in scannable blocks. Slightly longer than strictly necessary (the bullet format descriptions duplicate some of the Args section), but nothing is filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be re-explained, and format semantics plus defaults are well covered. The remaining gap is the unannotated mutation surface: overwrite behavior and permissions on the destination path are unstated, which is the one thing an agent could get wrong here.

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. It documents all three parameters, supplies default behavior for output_path and project_path, and — critically — gives the valid net_format values ("pads", "tabular") plus what each produces, which the schema does not enumerate at all.

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 ("Write the compiled connectivity to a flat netlist file") and immediately enumerates the two output formats. An agent can distinguish this from read-side siblings like get_nets or proj_get_connectivity 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?

Gives a clear use case ("a standalone netlist that other tools can import") and clarifies the relationship to get_nets as the same underlying data, implying read-vs-export routing. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative to pick when the agent only wants to inspect nets rather than materialize a file, so no true when-not clause.

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