Get schematic net detail

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's claim of 'Get' aligns. However, the description adds only minor behavioral context beyond annotations (e.g., 'including all connected pins and components'). Since an output schema exists, return details are likely documented there.

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?

A single concise sentence of 16 words that front-loads the action ('Get full details...'). No superfluous 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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks parameter details (especially netName) and prerequisites. It covers the basic purpose but not enough context for correct invocation.

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 only 50% (only projectId has a description). The description does not explain the netName parameter or its format, leaving half of the parameters undocumented. No additional meaning is provided beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states that the tool gets full details for a specific net, including connected pins and components. The verb 'Get' and resource 'full details for a specific net' are clear, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like 'easyeda_schematic_nets' which likely lists nets.

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 usage when full net details are needed, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'easyeda_schematic_nets' or 'easyeda_schematic_component_pins'. No when-not-to-use or context is given.

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