eda_pcb_net_select_net

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the return type (Promise<boolean>) and that the return indicates success, but it does not explain what 'select' does to the UI, whether it clears a previous selection, whether it triggers events, or how it behaves for invalid or nonexistent net names.

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 compact: a signature line, a one-line purpose, and a return-value note. Every line contributes information without fluff. It loses one point for being so terse that it skips context that would make the tool safer to invoke.

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 single-parameter operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate: it names the parameter, the action, and the boolean return. But it omits key context such as the target document (active PCB), selection behavior (append vs replace), and error semantics, which are important given the large set of similar sibling tools.

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 schema's 'args' description is generic ('JSON parameter array in official signature order'), so the description adds real value by exposing 'net: string' and the Chinese explanation '选中网络' (select net). It clarifies what the first argument should be. However, it does not specify the expected format, possible values, or how windowId interacts with the selection.

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 the action clearly: '选中网络' ('select net') and gives the exact signature 'pcb_Net.selectNet(net: string)'. It names the resource (a net in the PCB editor) and the verb (select), so an agent can infer the operation. However, it does not differentiate this from related sibling operations such as highlight_net, unselect_net, or unhighlight_net.

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 the many sibling net operations (select vs highlight, select vs unselect, etc.). There is no mention of prerequisites like having an active PCB document or whether the net must already exist. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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