pcb_net_connectivity_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose side effects and return behavior. It says it 'checks' and 'marks' nets, but does not state whether it modifies the board, what the output format is, or if it is read-only. The behavior is only partially clear.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the main purpose and adds brief parenthetical details. Every word contributes to clarity without redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns. It mentions pad counts and track segment counts and marking unrouted nets, but does not specify the return format (e.g., a report, a list, a boolean). The tool's simplicity is offset by this ambiguity, leaving the agent uncertain about how to interpret results.

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 sole parameter 'nets' is described in the schema as '指定检查的网络（默认全部）' (specify nets to check, default all), which already provides full semantic coverage. The description adds no extra beyond this, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 tool checks connectivity of all nets, and elaborates with specific outputs (pad count, track segment count, marking unrouted nets). This is a specific verb-resource combination that differentiates it from sibling tools like pcb_run_drc or pcb_component_clearance_check, which address different checks.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention typical scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description simply states what it does, leaving usage context implicit.

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