Verify schematic write result

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the read-only nature is clear. The description adds that it returns component-count delta and optional netlist validation, but does not disclose further behavioral details such as side effects or required permissions.

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 extremely concise at two sentences and 20 words, with no extraneous information. Every sentence adds value: the first explains the core action, the second specifies outputs and use case.

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 existence of an output schema, the description adequately explains return values (component-count delta, netlist validation) and the purpose. However, it omits any discussion of the 5 parameters, which for a verification tool would help agents understand configuration options.

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 input schema has 5 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, meaning no parameter documentation exists in the schema. The description provides no information about any parameters, failing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 reads back schematic state after a write, with specific outputs (component-count delta, netlist validation). It distinguishes itself from sibling schematic tools by focusing on verification after agent-authored writes.

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 explicitly indicates when to use: after an agent-authored write, to confirm placement or connection before continuing. However, it does not mention when not to use or list alternatives, leaving room for improvement.

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