Adds net labels to separately drawn segments of the same net that lack a visible label, ensuring they are named. Use nets to limit targets.
Add a net label to every piece of a net that is drawn separately from the rest without a
label (the convention: same net, not visibly connected, must be named). Limit with nets.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nets | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare idempotentHint=false, but the description says labels are added only to pieces 'without a label', implying that repeated calls with the same arguments would become no-ops once all pieces are labeled. That contradicts the non-idempotent annotation.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and scope, and the parenthetical convention adds useful context without excessive waste.
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 non-readonly mutation with no output schema, the description covers the operative condition and the scoping parameter. It leaves return behavior, permission requirements, and interaction with existing labels unstated.
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% for the single optional `nets` parameter. The description only says 'Limit with `nets`' and does not clarify whether entries are net names, IDs, patterns, or something else, so it does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.
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?
States a specific verb ('Add a net label') and resource ('net'), with a precise scoping condition: every separately drawn piece of a net that lacks a label. This is clear enough to separate from rename_net, but it does not explicitly name sibling 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?
The description supplies the operative convention ('same net, not visibly connected, must be named') and notes that the scope can be limited with `nets`. It does not state when not to use this tool or name any alternative explicitly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.