sch_analyze_net_compilation

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

Annotations are empty, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Preview', implying non-destructive, but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, side effects, or operational requirements. The lack of detail about how a preview is generated or whether it modifies anything is a significant gap.

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, clear sentence with no waste. It front-loads the core purpose effectively. However, it is almost too concise, sacrificing valuable usage and parameter context for brevity.

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 has 7 parameters, empty annotations, and an output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what inputs are expected, what the output represents, or any preconditions. This incompleteness undermines an agent's ability to invoke the tool correctly.

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 0% and the description does not mention any of the 7 parameters (nets, wires, labels, symbols, auto_layout, snap_to_grid, power_symbols). It adds no meaning beyond the parameter titles, leaving the agent to guess what each input represents.

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 a specific verb ('Preview') and resource ('netlist-aware schematic compilation' resolving endpoints and wires), which distinguishes it from other schematic analysis tools like sch_trace_net or sch_get_connectivity_graph. It unambiguously indicates a non-mutating analysis action.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It simply states what the tool does without contextualizing its place among sibling tools.

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