get_net_connections

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description adds behavioral context by detailing the process: scanning labels, tracing wires, and identifying pins. This goes beyond annotations, though it could mention what happens if no matches are found.

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 extremely concise: three sentences for the main purpose and process, plus two bullet lines for parameters. The primary purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and no unnecessary words are present.

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?

Given that an output schema exists (covering return values), the description adequately addresses the tool's inputs and operation. It could mention potential edge cases like duplicate labels, but overall it is complete for an agent to select and use the tool correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by providing clear definitions for both parameters: label_text with examples ('VCC', 'GND') and schematic_path as a file path. This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 clearly states the verb 'Find' and the resource 'component pins connected to a net label'. It provides a specific and distinct purpose, differentiating it from sibling tools like 'trace_hierarchical_net' by focusing on net labels and wire tracing.

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?

The description implies usage for finding pins on a net but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'trace_hierarchical_net' or 'list_schematic_wires'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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