analyze_hierarchical_nets

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. Describes that it 'analyzes network connections across the entire hierarchy' and 'shows how signals flow', but does not disclose whether it is read-only, performance implications, or error conditions. Adequate but not detailed.

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?

Two sentences that are front-loaded with the key action and resource. No redundant words. Highly efficient and clear.

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?

Given the output schema exists, the description adequately covers the tool's functionality for selection. It explains the hierarchical scope but could mention that it does not modify the design. Still, sufficient for a tool with simple inputs.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. Description adds no extra context for parameters beyond what is in the schema. No additional syntax, format, or usage hints.

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?

Clearly states verb 'analyze' and resource 'nets in hierarchical schematic design'. Specifically mentions 'across the entire hierarchy' and 'shows how signals flow between main schematic and sub-sheets', which distinguishes it from flat net analysis or PCB net analysis siblings.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use versus siblings like 'list_schematic_nets' or 'analyze_pcb_nets'. Usage is implied from the description but not spelled out.

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