get_netclasses

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

With no annotations, the description indicates a read operation (listing netclasses) but does not disclose further behavioral traits such as whether data is cached, if the board must be loaded, or any performance implications. It adds some value by specifying the returned information (constraints and member nets).

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. There is no redundant text, and every word contributes to understanding.

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's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description provides adequate context. It mentions the aspect of 'live board' and details the returned components, though it could explicitly state that a board must be open.

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 schema coverage is 100% by default. The description does not need to add parameter meaning, and it appropriately avoids extraneous information.

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 the tool lists netclasses on the live board, specifying the included constraints (track, clearance, via, diff-pair) and member nets. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_board_info (general board info) or trace_net (specific net tracing).

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or context for use beyond the basic listing action.

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