trace_hierarchical_connection

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 mentions tracing through hierarchy and including sub-sheets but does not indicate whether the tool is read-only, performance implications for large designs, or the form of output (e.g., list of paths). This lack of detail limits agent confidence.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, with the main action and key differentiator front-loaded. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no redundant information.

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 tool's simplicity (3 parameters, output schema exists), the description adequately conveys the core functionality. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral details, leaving some gaps for an agent to fully understand when and how to invoke it optimally.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly defining each parameter's type, purpose, and defaults. The description does not add new semantics beyond the schema, meeting the baseline expectation for high 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's purpose: 'Trace component connections across hierarchical schematics' and emphasizes traversing the entire hierarchy including sub-sheets. This specific verb-resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like trace_netlist_connection, which likely operates on flat netlists.

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 hierarchical connection tracing but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is no guidance on when not to use it or comparisons to siblings like analyze_hierarchical_nets, leaving the agent to infer context.

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