Get the total length of a specified net in the PCB editor. Returns the net length, 0 for zero-length nets, or undefined if the net is missing.
pcb_Net.getNetLength(net: string) -> Promise<number | undefined>
获取指定网络的长度
returns: 网络长度，undefined 为不存在该网络，0 为网络无长度
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| args | No | 按官方签名顺序排列的JSON参数数组 | |
| windowId | No | 目标EDA窗口ID；省略时使用当前活动窗口 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses return semantics: `undefined` for non-existent net and `0` for net with no length, which is valuable behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it does not mention that the operation is read-only or any potential side effects, though the 'get' prefix implies it.
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, containing only the signature and return semantics. It is front-loaded with the function call, but could be slightly more structured with separate sections for parameters and return value.
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 description explains the return values but does not specify the unit of length (e.g., millimeters) or mention the `windowId` parameter. It also does not reference any alternative tools for getting net information, leaving some context gaps for a complete agent understanding.
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 description includes the function signature with the `net: string` parameter, clarifying the format of the first argument in the `args` array. This adds meaning beyond the generic schema description, though the `windowId` parameter is not elaborated.
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 states a specific verb '获取' (get) and the resource '指定网络的长度' (length of specified net), making the tool's function unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes from sibling net getters by specifying the length aspect.
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 like eda_pcb_net_get_net or eda_pcb_net_get_net_color. It only states what the function does without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.