list_pcb_nets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the read-only behavior is established. The description adds useful context by specifying that it lists only 'named' nets and that pcb_path can be omitted to use a configured default. It does not disclose return format or error handling, which is acceptable for a simple read-only tool with an output schema.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no filler. The parameter explanation is compact and directly informative.

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 the tool's simplicity, annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the purpose and the optional parameter. It could add minor details about default path resolution or error cases, but these are not critical for a straightforward list operation.

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?

The schema provides only a default of '' with no description, while the description explains pcb_path is a path to a .kicad_pcb file and that omitting it uses a configured default. This meaningfully goes beyond the schema and fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 tool's function: 'List all named nets on the PCB.' The verb 'List' and resource 'named nets' are specific, and the phrase 'named nets' adds scope that distinguishes it from other net-related tools like get_net_connections or list_pcb_traces. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools, so it stops short of a perfect 5.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only explains the purpose and the optional parameter, but does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or alternative tools for different scenarios.

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