eda_pcb_net_get_all_nets_name

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses the API name, that it returns a Promise of an array of strings, and that it retrieves net names. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, whether an open PCB document is required, or what happens when no nets exist.

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: an API signature, a Chinese one-line purpose, and a return-type line. There is minor redundancy between '获取所有网络的网络名称' and 'returns: 网络名称数组', but overall every element is short and relevant.

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 no-argument getter, the description is minimally adequate: it states what is returned and the operation. Missing context includes which document/scope the nets come from and how this differs from `eda_pcb_net_get_all_nets`, but the low complexity keeps the burden modest.

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 100%, and the schema describes generic `args` and `windowId` parameters. The description adds a small amount of meaning by showing `getAllNetsName()` with empty parentheses, implying no positional arguments are needed, but it does not elaborate on `windowId` beyond what the schema already says.

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 action: get all PCB net names, and includes the API signature `pcb_Net.getAllNetsName()` with a return type. It is unambiguous about the resource (nets) and operation (get names). However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like `eda_pcb_net_get_all_nets` or `eda_sch_net_get_all_nets_name`.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention the active document scope, mention that it only returns names rather than net objects, or point to sibling tools for other net-related queries. Usage context is left entirely to inference.

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