eda_pcb_net_get_all_net_name

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention the return type (Promise<Array<string>>) and the deprecated status, which is some behavioral information. However, it does not disclose whether the tool operates on the current active document, if it requires a PCB document open, or any potential side effects. The description lacks critical behavioral context that would help an agent decide if it's safe or appropriate to invoke.

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 concise, consisting of a function signature, a Chinese description of the action, a return type note, and a deprecated tag. It is not overly verbose, and the key information (what it does, what it returns) is front-loaded. However, the mix of English and Chinese and the lack of structured formatting slightly reduce clarity, but it is still appropriately sized.

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 simple getter, the description is mostly complete: it states the purpose, return type, and deprecation. However, it does not specify which document it operates on (though the name implies PCB), nor does it mention any prerequisites or alternatives. Given that there is no output schema, the description could be more explicit about the context (e.g., 'operates on the active PCB document') and the deprecated nature should direct users to a replacement. It is minimally adequate but has gaps.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters (args and windowId), so the baseline is 3 even though the description adds no parameter-specific information. The description does not explain the args array or the windowId parameter, but since the schema already documents them, the description does not need to repeat them. No additional value is provided beyond the schema.

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 retrieves all network names via '获取所有网络的网络名称' (get all network names). The verb (get) and resource (network names) are specific, and the function signature clarifies it returns an array of strings. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like eda_pcb_net_get_all_nets or eda_sch_net_get_all_nets_name, but the focus on 'names' distinguishes it from the full net object retrieval. It is not a tautology and is unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention the deprecated status as a reason to avoid it, nor does it suggest a replacement (e.g., eda_pcb_net_get_all_nets). There is no context about required preconditions (e.g., open PCB document) or scenarios where this tool is preferred. The deprecated tag is present but not explained.

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