eda_sch_net_get_net

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

Without annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does state that undefined is returned if the net does not exist, which is useful. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only (though implied by 'get'), whether an active schematic document is required, or any error handling beyond the undefined return. It adds minimal context.

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, with the signature, a clear purpose statement, a version note, and a return description. It is front-loaded with the signature and purpose. The structure with 'remarks' and 'returns' is organized. A minor deduction because it could be slightly more compact, but it is efficient overall.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain the return value. It does state that detailed information is returned and undefined if not found, but it does not describe the ISCH_NetInfo structure or any prerequisites (e.g., active schematic document). For a simple getter, this is adequate but not comprehensive, given no annotations.

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 signature 'net: string', revealing the parameter name and type, but does not explain how to pass it within the args array (the schema only has a generic args array and windowId). The schema's description for args says to follow official signature order, but the description itself does not clarify that net is required or how to format it. It adds some value but not enough to fully compensate for the lack of explicit parameter documentation.

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 function retrieves detailed information for a specified net ('获取指定网络的详细信息') and provides the signature sch_Net.getNet(net: string). This clearly identifies the verb (get), resource (net), and specificity (single net). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling functions like eda_sch_net_get_all_nets, but the singular focus is evident.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when to prefer get_net over get_all_nets or get_all_nets_name, nor any conditions such as needing a specific net name. The description leaves this to inference.

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