pcb_render_net

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that the output is SVG and highlights traces and vias, but it does not specify how the SVG is returned (string, file, etc.) or whether the operation is read-only. The lack of return-value detail leaves the agent with ambiguity about subsequent steps.

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 one concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Render', and contains zero filler words. Every word contributes to specifying the tool's function.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives the essential purpose and output type, but it leaves gaps such as return value format, prerequisites like a valid parsed layout, and how this relates to PNG export tools. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both net_name and session_id already described clearly. The description adds the detail that traces and vias are highlighted, which gives slight context to net_name, but this is not materially beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Render') and names the exact resource ('SVG highlighting a specific net's traces and vias on the board'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling render tools like pcb_render_board or pcb_render_stackup by focusing on a single net's highlighting task.

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 'specific net' implies the tool is for highlighting one net rather than rendering the whole board, but it never explicitly states when to use this over alternatives or what excludes its use. No alternative tools are mentioned, so guidance is only implied.

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