net_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the net-matching semantics (case-insensitive, unique substring), which is a behavioral trait of input handling, but it doesn't disclose error conditions, required board state, or performance implications. It adds some value but not substantial behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 sentences with zero filler. The first sentence front-loads the tool's main payload (what data is returned), and the second gives the relevant input rule. It is appropriately concise for a query tool of this simplicity.

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 presence of an output schema and annotations reduces the burden, but the unexplained path parameter is a notable omission. The description also doesn't clarify whether net is required or how path interacts with it. For a tool with two parameters, this is incomplete.

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 both parameters. It explains the net parameter's matching rules, but the path parameter is completely undocumented—no explanation of what it is, when to use it, or how it relates to net. This leaves a significant gap for the agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 (a single net) and the complete set of data returned: pads with pin names, track lengths per layer, widths, vias, zones, and netclass rules. The verb is implied ('get'/'show') but unmistakable. This distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_nets (which only lists net names) and measure (which measures geometry).

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 provides input formatting guidance ('exact, case-insensitive, or a unique substring') which helps the agent pass the net parameter correctly. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like list_nets or measure, nor does it mention exclusions. Usage context is implied by the purpose, so it's adequate but not explicit.

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