get_net_connections

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds context about the scanning and tracing steps, enriching the agent's understanding without contradicting any annotations.

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 concise and well-structured, with a single-sentence purpose followed by a neat Args list. Every word earns its place, and it avoids unnecessary elaboration.

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 description fully captures the tool's operation and parameters, while the existing output schema covers return values. For a straightforward read-only query tool, nothing essential is missing.

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%, but the description compensates with a clear Args section. It explains label_text with examples ('VCC', 'GND') and notes schematic_path as optional with default behavior, adding meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 opens with 'Find all component pins connected to a net label', providing a specific verb and resource. It further details the method by stating it scans labels, traces wires, and identifies pins, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_schematic_labels or get_pin_positions.

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 when you need to find pins connected to a net label. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternatives like trace_hierarchical_net for cross-sheet net tracing.

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