list_schematic_labels

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the scoping to 'net labels' and the optionality of schematic_path, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as output format or edge cases, so it provides limited extra value beyond 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 extremely concise: one purpose sentence and a compact Args block. Every word earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 simple read-only list tool with an output schema and thorough annotations, the description is mostly complete. It covers the action, scope, and parameter semantics. However, it could explicitly mention that this tool is for regular net labels, not global or hierarchical labels, to remove minor ambiguity given the sibling tools.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates for the single parameter: it explains schematic_path as 'Path to .kicad_sch file' and notes that it is optional with a configured default. This adds clear meaning beyond the raw schema fields.

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?

Description states 'List all net labels in the schematic' with a specific verb and resource. The phrase 'all net labels' clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_schematic_global_labels and list_schematic_hierarchical_labels, which cover other label types.

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. Sibling tools for global and hierarchical labels exist, but the description does not mention them or any exclusions, leaving the user to infer the appropriate context.

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