pcb_highlight_net

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

Annotations are empty, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the operation is an 'attempt' and may not be supported, but it does not describe side effects, GUI requirements, or return behavior. This is minimal disclosure beyond the support caveat.

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 a single sentence, directly front-loaded, with no filler. Every word is meaningful. It is appropriately sized for a simple operation, though it could have been slightly longer to cover key details without becoming verbose.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description omits context about when highlighting is supported, what the GUI state impact is, or how errors are surfaced. For a GUI-dependent tool, this is incomplete for an agent to decide when it is safe or appropriate to invoke.

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 schema provides only 'type: string' and title 'Net Name' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not elaborate on net_name format, matching rules, case sensitivity, or prerequisites. With 0% coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 action: 'attempt to highlight a net in the GUI.' The verb 'highlight' and resource 'net' are specific, and the caveat 'when supported' adds useful context. It is distinguishable from siblings like pcb_get_nets or sch_trace_net, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only condition is 'when supported,' which is an environment limitation rather than a usage guideline. No exclusions or alternative tool recommendations are given, leaving the agent without decision criteria.

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