sch_trace_net

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral context by specifying that tracing goes through child sheets, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what happens if the net is not found, or any error conditions. The action 'trace' implies non-destructive, but this is not explicitly stated.

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 that is front-loaded with the action verb and includes essential scope. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 simplicity (one parameter, output schema present), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the core behavior and hierarchy traversal, but lacks context about selection among similar tools, prerequisites, or behavior on missing nets. The output schema presumably covers return values, so no additional return explanation is needed.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions 'a named net' without explaining net_name format, case sensitivity, or qualification. The property name and title are self-explanatory, but the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already shows.

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 a specific verb ('Trace') and resource ('a named net') with clear scope ('through the active schematic and matching child sheets'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sch_get_connectivity_graph or sch_analyze_net_compilation.

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 description implies usage for trace operations but does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, which is a significant gap given many similar net-analysis siblings.

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