pcb_trace_return_path

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool 'traces' and 'shows' information, implying a read-only analysis, but does not explicitly state that it makes no modifications, requires no special permissions, or note any limitations. It adds detail about output content, but lacks explicit safety/behavioral context.

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 efficiently states the primary action and then lists key output aspects. Every phrase adds useful information with no redundancy 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?

For a tool with two simple parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what information it returns. It does not explicitly address prerequisites beyond using session_id, but the key usage context is clear. A more explicit distinction from similar tools would make it 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% for both parameters (net_name and session_id), and the description merely reinforces net_name without adding new semantic detail. The schema already documents the purpose of each parameter, so the description adds marginal value beyond the structured field descriptions.

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+resource construction: 'Trace ground return current path for a specific net.' It clearly identifies the tool's function and scope, and lists concrete output elements (return path segments, loop area, split crossings, via transition quality) that distinguish it from broader sibling tools like pcb_analyze_return_paths.

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 analyzing a specific net's return path, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over similar siblings such as pcb_analyze_return_paths or pcb_visualize_return_path. No exclusions or alternative guidance are provided, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and description.

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