eda-mcp

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. It mentions positional placement but omits coordinate units (mm/mils), angle behavior (degrees vs radians, default implications), side effects, idempotency, or error conditions (e.g., duplicate names). Output schema exists but description doesn't hint at return structure.

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?

Extremely tight: two sentences plus a concrete code example. Information is front-loaded with the core action, followed by functional context, then illustrative syntax. Zero redundant text.

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?

Adequate for basic operation given the output schema handles return documentation. However, with 4 parameters at 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description underspecifies behavioral details (angle semantics, units) and sibling differentiation necessary for correct schematic capture workflows.

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 0%, requiring the description to compensate. The example illustrates name, x, and y usage but fails to document the 'angle' parameter entirely (default 0, rotation direction, units). No explanation of coordinate system origin or valid net name formats (alphanumeric, case sensitivity).

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?

Clear verb-resource pair ('Add a net label') and scope ('at a position'). The phrase 'Primary wiring mechanism for named nets' provides functional context. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling kicad.add_global_label (global vs local nets), which is critical in KiCad workflows.

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?

Provides implicit usage context by calling it the 'Primary wiring mechanism for named nets,' suggesting preference over add_wire for logical connections. Lacks explicit when-to-use guidance versus add_global_label or power symbols, and omits prerequisites like active project/schematic requirements.

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