kicad_highlight_net

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

Discloses the main effect (select and highlight), but without annotations, it lacks details on side effects (e.g., changing current selection), requirements (KiCad must be running), or failure modes (invalid net name).

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?

Single concise sentence with no extra words. The action and context are front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides the core functionality. However, it omits contextual details like prerequisite state (KiCad open, board loaded) and error handling, leaving gaps for a complete understanding.

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 covers the single 'net' parameter fully (type and description). The description adds no additional meaning beyond 'Net name', so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding.

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 action (select and highlight a net), the resource (copper items in KiCad), and the live result. It distinguishes from sibling 'pcb_highlight_net' by specifying 'in the running KiCad PCB editor'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pcb_highlight_net, or prerequisites such as KiCad being open. The description does not indicate when not to use it.

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