Get Schematic Native Nets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful semantic context by clarifying that these are native EasyEDA schematic nets rather than inferred geometric connectivity. It does not disclose whether results are paginated, what form the net data takes, or how timeout/raw-data behavior works.

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?

It is two compact sentences with no filler, and the tool's purpose and scope are front-loaded. Every phrase contributes to identifying the resource and the key distinction from geometric inference.

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 six-parameter query tool with a nested target object and no output schema, the description covers purpose and scope but leaves the target object semantics and result shape unexplained. The annotations adequately cover safety, but the absence of return-value information and limited parameter detail leaves some gaps for correct invocation.

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 83%, so most parameters are already documented. The description reinforces per-sheet versus project-wide querying, which maps to pageId/allPages, but adds no detail about the nested target object, timeoutMs, or includeRaw beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does most of the work.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: queries native schematic nets from EasyEDA Pro, with per-sheet or project-wide scope. It also distinguishes the result from geometric inferences, which helps separate it from connectivity derived from layout geometry. It does not name a specific sibling such as easyeda_find_net or easyeda_trace_net, so it falls just short of full sibling differentiation.

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 phrase 'per-sheet or project-wide' implies the main scoping choice, and 'native net connectivity' versus 'geometric inferences' hints at when this tool is preferable. However, there is no explicit instruction naming alternatives like easyeda_find_net or easyeda_trace_net, nor any stated exclusions for when not to use it.

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