pcb_highlight_net

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

The description discloses the output type (2D PNG) and the rendering behavior (highlighted net over dimmed board). However, it omits side effects like file writing, potential large output, or required preconditions (e.g., board must be loaded). Since no annotations exist, the description carries the full burden but falls short on comprehensive disclosure.

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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the core functionality and then stating defaults. Every word is purposeful, with no repetition or filler.

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?

Despite the clear rendering purpose, the description fails to mention prerequisites (e.g., loading a board via 'load_board') and the tool's return value or output format. With no output schema, this lack leaves the agent uncertain how to handle the result. The sibling list includes essential setup tools, but the description itself does not guide the agent on sequencing.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters. The tool description adds value by explaining defaults ('Defaults to the whole board and all copper layers') and the conceptual effect (bright over dimmed), which aids understanding beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions.

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 that the tool renders a 2D PNG highlighting one net's tracks, vias, pads, and zones over a dimmed board. It specifies the visual result and default scope, but does not explicitly distinguish from similar sibling tools like 'kicad_highlight_net' or 'pcb_render'.

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 like 'kicad_highlight_net' (GUI context) or 'pcb_render' (whole board). The description lacks prerequisites or conditions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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