Audit imported schematic design

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds detail about building a canonical model and specific audit checks, reinforcing no modification. No contradictions.

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?

Description is concise (3 sentences), front-loaded with purpose, and free of redundant text. Every sentence adds value.

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 the presence of output schema, annotations covering safety, and simple parameters, the description sufficiently covers all necessary context for an agent to understand the tool's functionality.

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 has 100% description coverage for all 3 parameters. Description adds no extra meaning beyond schema (e.g., doesn't explain formats or constraints). Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verbs ('Read', 'build', 'report') and clearly lists the audit items (net aliases, references, expressions, values, BOM classification). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing read-only and audit nature, unlike modification tools.

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?

States 'preview only; it never renames nets or changes components', conveying when to use (read-only audit). Implicitly contrasts with modification siblings, but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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