analyze_pcb_nets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, requires permissions, or has side effects. Although implicit as an analysis tool, no explicit behavioral disclosure is made.

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 concise: two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second lists outputs. No redundant or unnecessary words.

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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to detail return values. It lists major outputs (track width, via distribution, etc.), which is sufficient for an analysis tool. Could include more detail but is adequate.

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% (only parameter file_path with description). The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates the purpose. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 analyzes nets in a KiCad PCB file and lists specific outputs (track width distribution, via distribution, per-net track length ranking, layer coverage, design rule comparison). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_hierarchical_nets or analyze_pcb_power_integrity.

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 provides clear context that the tool is for net analysis on a KiCad PCB file, but does not offer explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., analyze_hierarchical_nets or analyze_pcb_signal_integrity). No exclusion criteria are given.

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