list_nets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the geometric derivation approach and the lack of a KiCad dependency, but it does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it writes files, or what side effects or failure modes might occur.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded and the KiCad independence note is a distinct, useful addition.

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?

Although an output schema exists and return values do not need to be described, the definition omits sibling differentiation, optional parameter semantics, and side-effect disclosure. For a tool with three parameters and no annotations, this is not complete enough for reliable agent selection and invocation.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameter meaning, but it only implies the schematic_path input via 'schematic files'. It gives no explanation of name_contains or follow_hierarchy, leaving the optional parameters underspecified.

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 action (derive the netlist), a resource (schematic files), and a distinctive method (geometrically, no KiCad installed). It is clear, though it does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling such as export_spice_netlist.

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 'Works with no KiCad installed' gives a useful environmental context for when this tool is appropriate, but there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling to prefer, such as export_spice_netlist. The usage guidance is implied rather than fully stated.

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