trace_connections

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states that connections are traced but does not describe whether hierarchy is traversed, whether only logical connectivity is returned, or how exhaustive the trace is. The follow_hierarchy parameter introduces important behavior that the description omits.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately states the primary action and the optional focusing parameter, making it easy to process.

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?

For a tool with four parameters, no annotations, and zero schema descriptions, the description is too sparse to be complete. It covers the core idea but omits paramter semantics, hierarchy behavior, and any boundary conditions. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to document return values, but does not compensate for the missing input guidance.

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 compensate for all four parameters. It hints at the roles of reference and pin ('from a component, or from one specific pin'), but it does not explain schematic_path or follow_hierarchy, leaving significant meaning unresolved.

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 uses a clear verb ('Trace') and resource ('connections') and identifies the two invocation modes: from a whole component or from a specific pin. It does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like list_nets or pcb_connectivity, so it is clear but not fully distinguished.

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 description gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_nets, pcb_connectivity, or export_spice_netlist. The intended context must be inferred entirely from the word 'trace', which is insufficient for an agent deciding between similar connectivity-related tools.

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