get_items_by_netclass

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention any side effects, rate limits, or error conditions. It merely describes the basic functionality without transparency on constraints or behavior beyond retrieval.

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, direct sentence with no unnecessary words. It is efficiently front-loaded with the action and resource. However, it could be slightly expanded to include parameter hints without losing conciseness.

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 has 2 parameters (one required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the return format, default behavior (e.g., all item types if none specified), or any edge cases. For a retrieval tool, the description should provide more context for the agent to use it correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate. It fails to mention either parameter ('netclass' or 'item_types') or their roles. The description only implies netclass selection but does not specify the parameter name or explain the optional filtering by item types. This leaves the agent without critical input semantics.

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 ('Retrieve') and the resource ('board items associated with nets in a specific netclass'). It is specific about the scope (netclass-level) but does not distinguish from siblings like 'get_net_items' which returns items per net, or 'get_tracks_by_netclass' which returns only tracks. The verb is direct and the resource is well-defined.

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 'get_net_items' or 'get_tracks_by_netclass'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. The description alone does not help the agent decide between similar tooling.

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