sch_nets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description does not need to restate that this is safe and repeatable. It adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: results are ordered by pin count descending, and the filter performs case-insensitive substring matching. There is no contradiction with the 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 very concise: two short sentences with no filler. The main resource and ordering are front-loaded, and the filter nuance follows. It earns its place, though it is slightly under-specified in ways that affect other dimensions.

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?

Given that an output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description conveys the core behavior needed to invoke the tool: list schematic nets sorted by pin count, optionally filtered. However, it omits any explanation of the 'path' parameter and lacks guidance on when to prefer this over similar sibling tools, so it is not fully 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?

The schema provides no per-parameter descriptions (0% schema coverage), so the description must compensate. It meaningfully explains the 'filter' parameter as a case-insensitive substring, but it does not explain 'path' or 'limit'. 'limit' is somewhat inferable from its default, but 'path' is ambiguous, leaving a significant gap.

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 (schematic nets) and the key attribute (pin counts), and states the ordering (largest first). It is not a tautology and gives a concrete sense of what the tool returns. However, it does not explicitly say 'list' or 'get' and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like list_nets, sch_net, or net_info.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many related sibling tools such as list_nets, sch_net, or net_info. The only usage hint is the filter parameter behavior, which is a parameter detail rather than a selection criterion. An agent must infer when this tool is the right choice.

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