Validate netlist

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it explains that validation requires both inference and native ERC, and that inference alone can give false positives when pins overlap without a wire. This enhances transparency beyond 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 concise (two sentences), front-loads the core purpose, and avoids unnecessary content. It could be slightly more structured, but it is effective and efficient.

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 complexity (cross-checking two validation methods) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context. It explains the key condition for 'valid' and the reason for combining checks, leaving no major gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are described in the input schema. The description does not add additional meaning or usage details for the parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score 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 clearly states the tool validates the schematic netlist, listing specific checks (inferred nets, connected refs/pins, floating pins, cross-check with native ERC) and defines what 'valid' means. It provides a specific verb+resource with distinctive scope.

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 includes useful context about false positives when inference runs alone, implying when this combined check is valuable. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like easyeda_erc_run or easyeda_schematic_nets, nor does it provide clear usage guidance.

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