get_net_connections

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

Annotations already declare this is a safe, idempotent, closed-world read, so the description is free to add value — which it does by explaining the scan/trace pipeline and the non-obvious multi-unit handling rule (a sibling gate's input is not reported on this net). This is genuine behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

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, then mechanism, then a caveat, then parameters. Every sentence earns its place; the only minor bloat is the explicit 'Args:' block duplicating schema fields.

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 need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies mechanism, the multi-unit nuance, and both parameter meanings, leaving little an agent would need before invoking it.

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 carries the full burden and mostly does: label_text is defined as the net name with concrete examples ('VCC', 'GND'), and schematic_path is described as a .kicad_sch path that is optional and falls back to a configured default. This compensates well, though format specifics (e.g. whether label_text is matched exactly or as a substring) remain unspecified.

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 — 'Find all component pins connected to a net label' — and the follow-on sentence clarifies the mechanism (scan labels, trace wires, identify pins). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from related siblings like trace_hierarchical_net or wire_pins_to_net.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose (use it to discover pins on a given net), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no named alternatives among the many net/label siblings. An agent can infer the context but is not routed actively.

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