verify_netlist

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Cross-check' implies a read-only verification action rather than a mutation, and the description adds the practical dependency on KiCad being installed and the authoritative status of the result. However, it does not disclose error behavior, output details, or whether the operation is safe to run repeatedly.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action. The first sentence says what it does, the second gives a hard prerequisite, and the third reinforces its role. Every sentence earns its place, though no additional useful behavioral or parameter guidance is included.

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 description covers the essential purpose and the KisCad dependency, and an output schema exists so return values don't need explaining. But for a two-parameter tool, it omits the meaning of follow_hierarchy and does not help an agent decide between verify_netlist and related netlist tools beyond labeling itself authoritative. This is adequate but not complete.

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 should compensate, but it does not mention either parameter. The name 'schematic_path' is reasonably self-explanatory, but 'follow_hierarchy' is not explained, and the description gives no additional meaning about how these inputs affect the verification.

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 names the action ('cross-check'), the object ('our geometric net tracing'), and the reference ('KiCad's own netlist exporter'). It also frames itself as the authoritative correctness check, which distinguishes it from related sibling tools like trace_connections and 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?

It gives clear context: this is the authoritative verification step, and it explicitly states the key prerequisite that KiCad must be installed. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops just short of a 5, but the intended usage is clear.

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