schematic_summary

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful operational context by specifying the input source (exported netlist) and the kind of aggregated data returned, but it does not disclose edge behaviors such as null path handling.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every listed item—sheets, symbol counts, nets, power nets, DNP parts—adds meaningful information.

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 read-only summary tool with an output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it names the input source and the summarized content. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit guidance about the optional path parameter, but the output schema likely fills in the return structure.

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 has a single optional 'path' parameter with 0% description coverage. The phrase 'from the exported netlist' gives some hint that path likely points to an exported netlist, but it does not explain accepted formats, file vs directory, or what happens when path is null.

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 states a specific behavior: generating a schematic overview from an exported netlist, and enumerates the concrete contents (sheets, symbol counts, nets, power nets, DNP parts). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like board_summary or project_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?

The description implies the tool should be used when a schematic-level overview derived from an exported netlist is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives such as board_summary or project_info.

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