schematic_netlist

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions using kicad-cli and the output contents, but it does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, whether it writes files, how the 'limit' parameter affects results, or any other side effects.

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 short and front-loaded: two sentences that convey the core function and the key benefit. Every word adds value, and there is no redundant 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?

The tool has 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must compensate. It explains the general result but leaves out important contextual details like return structure, pagination/limiting behavior, the meaning of include_nodes, and whether the operation is destructive or read-only. This is insufficient for reliable tool selection and invocation.

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%, and the description does not explain the 'path', 'limit', or 'include_nodes' parameters. More critically, it claims 'every component and every net' but the schema shows a default 'limit' of 400, which may conflict with that claim and confuses users about parameter behavior.

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 specific verbs ('Export and parse') and a clear resource ('a schematic's netlist'), and explains the content: every component and every net with connected pins. It also distinguishes itself as 'the most complete view of schematic connectivity' among sibling tools like list_nets.

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 this tool is for full, comprehensive connectivity data ('The most complete view...'), but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives like list_nets or export_schematic, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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