schematic_connectivity_gate

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

With no annotations provided, the description is the sole source of behavioral context. It implies a read-only evaluation but does not disclose whether the gate returns a boolean, a report, a score, or any other output, nor does it explain thresholds, side effects, or dependencies on project state.

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, directly positioned sentence with no filler or repetition. It communicates the core purpose swiftly and efficiently, perfectly sized for scanning in a list of tools.

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?

This gate tool has minimal annotations, no visible output schema, and a terse description. It does not clarify what 'electrically meaningful' means, how the evaluation is executed, what the return value represents, or what the agent should do after invocation. The description is inadequate for a tool that likely serves as a quality checkpoint.

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 the schema is trivially 100% covered and there is no parameter semantics to explain. The description's reference to 'schematic structure and hierarchy' provides implicit context for what is evaluated, meeting the baseline for parameterless tools.

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 ('Evaluate') and resource ('schematic structure and hierarchy') with a defined assessment criterion ('electrically meaningful'). It distinguishes this gate from broader quality gates by emphasizing connectivity, though it does not explicitly reference sibling tools or alternative use cases.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as schematic_quality_gate or sch_analyze_net_compilation. It lacks any mention of suitable scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision criteria for tool selection.

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