diff_netlists

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower, and the description adds real value by enumerating what the diff reports (added/removed components and nets, pin moves, change count, ECO severity). It does not specify the severity thresholds or the fail/degenerate case for mismatched inputs, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

A single dense, front-loaded sentence that leads with the expanded acronym and domain, then lists report contents. It is slightly list-heavy but every clause earns its place; no filler.

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, the description usefully enumerates the return contents and severity scale, and all params are described in the schema. It is nearly complete, lacking only severity determination logic and expected input shape.

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 coverage is 100%, so all four params (old/new modules and connections) are already documented as Revision A/B. The description adds no additional format or ordering nuance beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (diff/compare) and resource (two netlist revisions) plus expanded outputs, and is clearly distinguishable from siblings like validate_netlist or export_kicad_netlist. An agent can identify what it does without opening the schema.

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 phrase 'for PLM change management' and 'ECO' imply the scenario, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, no prerequisites, and no alternates (e.g., validate_netlist). Usage is implied rather than stated.

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