eda_pcb_drc_get_all_net_classes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only reveals the async return type and the fact that all net classes are returned. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, which window/document it applies to, what failure modes exist, or how empty results are represented. This is thin behavioral coverage.

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 contains redundancy: the API signature line, the Chinese phrase '获取所有网络类的详细属性', and the 'returns:' line all essentially repeat the same information. It would be more concise as a single sentence, and the current format wastes tokens without adding insight.

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 no output schema, the description should explain the shape of IPCB_NetClassItem or at least clarify which document's net classes are returned. Saying 'detailed properties' is vague, and the tool's dependency on windowId or active document is not addressed, leaving agents uncertain about the result and invocation context.

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 coverage is 100%, and both parameters (args, windowId) already have descriptive text in the schema. The description adds nothing about these parameters, but because the schema fully describes them, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool gets all net classes and their detailed properties, and the API signature gives the return type. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like get_all_differential_pairs because it explicitly targets net classes, but it does not specify the scope (e.g., current PCB document), which leaves some ambiguity.

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 related alternatives such as get_net_rules, get_current_rule_configuration, or create_net_class. The description does not mention prerequisites like an open PCB document, nor does it differentiate this from other getters in the same DRC family.

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