List PCB nets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable extra context by specifying the prerequisite of an active/focused PCB and the exact return format (JSON array of net name strings), which is especially useful given no output schema exists.

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 compact and well-structured with labeled sections (Purpose, When to use, Parameters, Returns, Prerequisites). Every sentence contributes meaningful information without 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?

For a simple no-parameter read-only tool, the description covers purpose, usage context, parameter absence, return type, and prerequisites. With good annotations and no output schema, this level of detail is fully adequate for an agent to invoke the tool 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?

The input schema has no parameters, and the description confirms 'Parameters: None'. With zero parameters, the baseline is 4, and there is nothing further to add beyond what the schema already communicates.

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 states 'Unique net names on the active PCB', using a specific verb-resource pair that clearly identifies the function. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on net names, as opposed to layers, rules, or designators.

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?

Provides explicit use cases ('Netlist-style checks, signal naming audit') but does not mention when not to use it or name any alternative tools. This gives clear context but lacks exclusions.

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