list_tracks_vias

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the scope ('on the open board') and the optional filtering, which implies a read-only list operation. However, it does not mention any side effects, prerequisites beyond an open board, or the return format/pagination behavior. For a read-only tool, this is passable but not fully transparent.

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, well-formed sentence that front-loads the core verb and resource, then adds the optional filter. There is no redundant wording or unnecessary detail, making it highly concise and readable.

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 simplicity (two optional params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps. It does not mention the 'limit' parameter, what data is returned (e.g., coordinates, net associations), or any error conditions. A slightly richer description would improve completeness for agents, but the current one is acceptable for a basic list operation.

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 meanings. It clarifies that the 'net' parameter filters by net name, which is helpful. However, it completely omits the 'limit' parameter, leaving its purpose (limiting the number of results) undocumented. With two params and only one partially explained, the description fails to adequately support parameter understanding.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'tracks and vias on the open board', which clearly states what the tool does. It also mentions an optional filter by net name, adding precision. This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_nets or list_footprints.

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 implies usage when you need to inspect tracks/vias on the current board and optionally filter by net, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools or when not to use it. There are no exclusions or alternative tool references, leaving usage context somewhat vague.

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