sch_place_bus

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does reasonably well: it names the target as the active schematic, specifies mils for coordinates, and notes a confirming dictionary return. It does not discuss whether placement is undoable, whether it overwrites overlapping objects, or what happens if no schematic is active, but the core behavioral context is present.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action, then provides the conceptual context and workflow, then documents args and returns. Every section earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler text.

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 four-parameter placement tool, the description covers purpose, coordinate units, schematic targeting, workflow, and return value. An output schema exists, so it does not need a deeper return explanation; all information an agent needs to invoke it correctly is present.

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 four required parameters as start/end X/Y coordinates and explicitly states the unit is mils, adding meaning absent from the bare x1/y1/x2/y2 schema properties.

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 description states a specific verb and resource — placing a bus segment between two XY coordinates on the active schematic — and explains that buses carry multi-signal groups like DATA[0..7], which distinguishes this from a plain wire or line. It also references bus entries and net labels, making the relationship to sibling schematic-placement tools clear.

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 gives a clear typical workflow (bus line, then bus entries at each pin, then wires) and explains the use case of marking multi-signal groups with bus naming syntax. It does not explicitly say when to use this instead of sch_place_line or sch_place_wires, but the distinction is strongly implied by the bus-specific semantics.

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