trace_hierarchical_net

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it traverses hierarchical pins/labels and supports an optional path, but it does not disclose behaviors for missing nets, partial matches, or output shape beyond 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 concise: one sentence for purpose and a short Args list. It front-loads the key action and resource, with no redundant phrasing or filler.

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 moderate complexity, an output schema exists, and annotations cover safety, the description adequately covers purpose and parameters. It could add more context on expected use cases or limitations, but the essentials are present.

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 has 0% coverage (no property descriptions), but the description's Args section fully explains both parameters: net_name as the net/label name to trace, and schematic_path as the root .kicad_sch file path with a default fallback. This completely compensates for the schema gap.

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 uses a specific verb 'trace' with resource 'net across the hierarchy' and explicitly mentions 'following hierarchical pins and labels', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling list functions like list_cross_sheet_nets or validate_hierarchy.

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 tracing a net's path through hierarchy but does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or contrasts with alternatives (e.g., list_hierarchy, list_cross_sheet_nets). It's clear enough for basic use but lacks exclusions or context.

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