measure_net_lengths

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions 'optional preliminary delay' but does not clarify whether the tool is read-only, what units are used, what 'preliminary' means, or any side effects. Minimal transparency beyond the basic action.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It conveys the primary action and the optional delay element efficiently. This is appropriately concise.

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's context (among many EDA analysis tools) and the minimal schema descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the meaning of 'path', the format of 'nets', or when to use this tool over similar ones. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the description still lacks essential operational context.

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 by explaining parameters. It does not explain 'nets', 'path', or 'effective_dielectric_constant' in any detail. The phrase 'optional preliminary delay' hints at the dielectric constant's role but leaves most parameter semantics ambiguous.

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 action ('Measure') and resource ('geometric centerline lengths'), with an optional delay calculation. It is specific enough to understand the core function, though it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like analyze_length_group or get_route_details.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions. Given the large set of sibling tools for length/delay analysis, this is a significant gap.

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