eda_sch_net_get_all_nets

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 conveys this is a read operation ('getAllNets') but does not disclose scope, whether the return is an empty array when no nets exist, performance characteristics, or which document/window context it operates on. For a get-all tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 brief, but brevity here borders on under-specification rather than conciseness. The lines '获取所有网络的详细信息', 'returns: 所有网络的详细信息', and the function signature all repeat essentially the same information. The ADD-since version note is the only genuinely useful detail, and the rest is redundant with the tool name.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain return structure and invocation context, but it provides only a bare type reference (ISCH_NetInfo). It fails to clarify scope (current schematic vs current project vs all documents), which is essential given the sibling eda_sch_net_get_current_project_all_nets implies a project-scoped variant exists. An agent has insufficient information to invoke this correctly.

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%, so the schema documents both parameters (args and windowId). The description adds the return type Promise<Array<ISCH_NetInfo>> which references a type the agent may need to resolve, but it adds nothing about parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 it retrieves detailed information for all nets, with a clear verb+resource. However, it does not distinguish from closely related siblings like eda_sch_net_get_all_nets_name (which returns net names only) or eda_sch_net_get_current_project_all_nets (which scopes to the current project). An agent cannot tell which of these get-all-nets tools to pick.

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 on when to use this tool versus eda_sch_net_get_all_nets_name, eda_sch_net_get_current_project_all_nets, or eda_sch_net_get_net. The critical scope question — does 'all nets' mean the current schematic, current document, or entire project? — is left unanswered, which is exactly the ambiguity that distinguishes it from get_current_project_all_nets.

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