pcb_get_ratsnest

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description's 'Report' aligns with read-only behavior. It adds context that results depend on the latest DRC view, but does not clarify if DRC is automatically invoked or how stale data is handled.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose and no redundancy. Every word contributes meaning.

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?

As a simple 0-parameter query with an output schema, the description suffices. Minor ambiguity about the scope of 'board items' and the exact dependency on DRC, but overall 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?

There are no parameters, so the schema fully covers this aspect. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4; the description adds no parameter semantics, but none are needed.

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 uses the specific verb 'Report' with the resource 'currently unconnected board items' and qualifier 'using the latest DRC view', clearly indicating a read-only diagnostics tool. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like get_unconnected_nets, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 'using the latest DRC view' implies the tool is intended to be used after running DRC, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like get_unconnected_nets. There is no exclusionary guidance.

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