sch_get_wires

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds no further behavioral details, such as whether wires are returned across all sheets or just the current sheet, or whether bus wires are included. It merely restates the basic function already evident from the name.

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, direct sentence with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded and immediately conveys the tool's purpose without any unnecessary detail.

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?

The tool is simple, the output schema exists, and the annotations cover safety. The description clearly states what the tool does, but it leaves minor ambiguity about the scope of 'schematic' (all sheets vs. current sheet). Overall, it is adequate for a no-parameter list tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to explain. The schema coverage is trivially 100%, and the baseline for no-parameter tools is 4, which is appropriate.

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 'List' and clearly identifies the resource as 'all wires in the schematic,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like sch_get_symbols, sch_get_labels, and sch_get_net_names. It is unambiguous and accurately reflects the tool's function.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as using sch_get_net_names for nets or sch_get_symbols for components. The usage is implied by the tool name and description, but no context is provided about prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative scenarios.

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