si_bind_interfaces_to_net_classes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the dry_run default, explains that setting dry_run=False modifies the project by calling pcb_set_net_class(), and states the return value. It could add more about side effects or failure modes, but the main mutating behavior is transparent.

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 well-structured with a short summary, a behavior paragraph, and clearly labeled Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds useful information without redundancy or fluff.

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 description covers the workflow, the dry-run mechanism, and the return value, and an output schema exists. It could mention error cases or what happens when interfaces lack impedance targets, but it is sufficiently complete for the tool's moderate complexity.

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%, but the description's Args section compensates by explaining both parameters: interfaces are InterfaceSpec dicts from project_get_design_spec(), and dry_run controls execution vs. planning. The InterfaceSpec structure isn't fully elaborated, but the reference to the design spec function gives enough semantic grounding.

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 ('Map interface specs') and clearly identifies the resource (KiCad net classes) and action (generating pcb_set_net_class calls). It distinguishes itself from lower-level tools like pcb_set_net_class by operating on design intent interfaces.

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 clear context: it processes interfaces with impedance targets and can run as a dry-run or execute changes. It references project_get_design_spec() as the input source, which implies when it should be used, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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