sch_get_netlist

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get' implying a read operation but does not mention side effects, return format, permissions, or state requirements (e.g., requires an open schematic document).

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?

A single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource.

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?

For a simple getter tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about the current schematic state (e.g., 'from the currently open schematic') which would improve completeness.

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 schema (with 0% description coverage) includes one parameter 'type' with an enum. The description only says 'in the specified format' without adding meaning beyond the schema's enum values. The agent can infer options from the schema, so the description adds minimal value.

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 ('Get'), resource ('schematic netlist'), and qualifier ('in the specified format'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'sch_validate_netlist' which implies validation vs. retrieval.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, context (e.g., open schematic), or exclusions (e.g., use 'sch_validate_netlist' for validation).

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