proj_get_connectivity_many

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load and does disclose a non-obvious behavior: force_recompile performs SaveAll + cache invalidation + recompile, i.e. it mutates/saves documents before reading. It also warns that returned pin_name values can be wrong and points to _datasheet_guidance/_datasheet_parts as mitigation. It stops short of stating read-only/authorization semantics or cost/latency of a recompile.

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 core purpose and the sibling routing rule, which is the right ordering. The trailing 'Args:' and 'Returns:' blocks largely restate the input schema and the existing output schema, so a few lines do not earn their place.

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?

The output schema exists and the description still names the key response fields (components[], matched/requested, not_found[]), and it flags the main correctness hazard plus its mitigation. Only the project_path resolution behavior and the side effects/expense of force_recompile are left underspecified.

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 supply meaning. It does for designators (list of component designators) and force_recompile (SaveAll + cache invalidation + recompile, with a when-to-use rule), but project_path is only restated as 'Optional project path' with no indication of default/active-project fallback behavior.

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 ('Pin-net connectivity') plus explicit scope ('MANY components in ONE round-trip'), and names the sibling it supersedes (proj_get_connectivity). An agent can distinguish it from the single-component variant and from pcb_get_nets/proj_get_nets without opening a 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 an explicit selection rule ('PREFER THIS over looping proj_get_connectivity') and a conditional for the third parameter ('Use when you need a guaranteed-fresh netlist'). Both when-to-use and the alternative are stated outright rather than implied.

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