pcb_classify_nets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful behavioral details: output includes confidence scores and automatic differential pair detection. However, it does not mention return format, whether the operation is read-only, or any side effects, leaving some gaps for an unannotated tool.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, no redundant information. Every word adds value with concrete examples and output characteristics.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives a complete picture of what the tool does and what to expect (classification with confidence scores, differential pair detection). It could mention the input requirement, but that is already covered by the schema's parameter description.

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 100% for the single parameter (session_id), which is well-described. The description adds no extra parameter detail, but the baseline of 3 applies since the schema fully documents the required input.

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 purpose: 'Classify all nets by function' with specific examples (power, ground, DDR, USB, PCIe) and confidence scores. It distinguishes itself from sibling analysis tools by focusing on net classification rather than interface detection or specific protocol analysis.

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 when net classification is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like pcb_detect_interfaces. The schema mentions a prerequisite (session_id from pcb_parse_layout), but the description itself does not address usage context or exclusions.

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