create_net

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning side effects, error conditions, required permissions, or the nature of the created net. For a mutation operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant omission.

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 clear sentence, which is appropriately concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it is under-specified; the brevity works against completeness. It earns its place but leaves critical details unaddressed.

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 tool with no annotations and an output schema, the description should provide enough context for correct invocation. It omits usage scenarios, return behavior, and any operational details. Even though the tool is simple, the lack of guidance makes it incomplete for an agent deciding whether and how to call it.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. The word 'named' hints at the required 'name' parameter, but the optional 'net_class' is not explained at all. The description adds no value beyond what the schema already shows, failing to clarify semantics for either parameter.

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: 'Create a named semantic net in the Circuit IR.' It specifies a verb (create), a resource (semantic net), and the context (Circuit IR). This is specific enough to distinguish from the sibling tools like project_create or component_add, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies you use it when you need to create a net, but it does not state any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. Sibling tools are not referenced, 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.