kicad.create_net_class

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully notes the project state requirement ('[Requires open project]'), but omits other critical behavioral details such as whether creating a duplicate net class overwrites or errors, what units apply to the numerical parameters, and whether the operation is idempotent.

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 appropriately compact and front-loaded: prerequisite first, purpose second, example third. Every element earns its place—the example syntax is particularly efficient for clarifying parameter types and usage patterns without verbose explanation.

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 3-parameter creation tool with an output schema, the description covers the essentials (prerequisite, purpose, example) but leaves gaps in behavioral contract (units, collision handling) and parameter documentation given the schema's lack of descriptions. The existence of the output schema excuses the lack of return value documentation.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by naming the parameters ('trace width and clearance') and providing a concrete example showing typical values (0.5, 0.3). However, it fails to specify units (millimeters vs inches), valid ranges, or semantic meaning of 'clearance', leaving significant gaps that the schema should have covered.

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 'Create[s] a net class with specific trace width and clearance'—a specific verb and resource. While it identifies what the tool does, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling `set_design_rules` tool, which could be confused with net class creation.

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 includes the prerequisite '[Requires open project]', providing essential context for when the tool can be invoked. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus `set_design_rules` or what constitutes a valid net class name, and does not mention error conditions like duplicate names.

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