pcb_connectivity

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 usefully explains the analysis categories (fully routed, unrouted, split islands) and implies a read-only analysis, but it does not explicitly state that the tool makes no modifications, nor does it mention any side effects or input requirements beyond the schema.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core concept and immediately explains what the tool reports. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundancy or 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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema, and the description captures the essential result categories. However, it omits any parameter guidance and usage context, so an agent may know what the tool does but not exactly how to supply the pcb_path or when to choose this tool over related siblings.

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%, and the description does not mention pcb_path at all. The property title 'Pcb Path' gives a minimal clue, but the description fails to compensate for the missing parameter documentation by explaining what path should be supplied or any format expectations.

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 clearly identifies the resource (copper connectivity) and the outcome (which nets are fully routed, unrouted, or split into islands). It is specific enough to distinguish from list_nets or pcb_statistics, though it lacks an explicit verb and does not directly name sibling tools for differentiation.

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 provided about when to use this tool over alternatives like trace_connections or verify_netlist. The description gives no context on prerequisites, expected design state, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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