pcb_get_nets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It only says 'Get net list' without disclosing read-only guarantees, output format, error conditions, or behavior when the session is invalid. It provides minimal beyond the verb itself.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that is direct and free of unnecessary words. It efficiently states the tool's action and source design context.

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?

Although the tool is a simple getter with only two parameters, the description does not mention how the filter pattern is applied or what the return structure looks like. With no output schema, a bit more detail about the returned net list would improve completeness.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters ('session_id' and 'filter' with descriptions). The description adds no extra parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'Get net list from a parsed design' clearly identifies the action (get) and the resource (net list), and scopes it to a parsed design. This distinguishes it from sibling get_* tools like pcb_get_components or pcb_get_vias.

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 phrase 'from a parsed design' implies that the tool should be used after parsing a design, providing some context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives for net-related analysis (e.g., pcb_classify_nets or pcb_render_net).

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