Auto-extract netlist and run semantic ERC

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it reads the LIVE schematic, infers net/pin electrical types from naming conventions rather than verifying them, and warns findings are a first-pass signal.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, with the caveat placed after. Every clause earns its place — no filler.

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?

With annotations covering safety and an output schema covering return values, the description only needs to convey purpose and the inference caveat, which it does well. It stops just short of noting prerequisites (e.g., an open/live project) for the extraction step.

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 0% and the single parameter (projectId) is undocumented in both schema and description. The name is largely self-explanatory, so this is not a severe gap, but the description adds no meaning 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?

States a concrete verb+resource pair ('Extract nets/devices/pins from the LIVE schematic') plus the analysis it performs ('run semantic ERC'), and explicitly names the sibling it complements ('semantic_erc_validate'). An agent can distinguish it from schematic_nets or erc_run without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear context for use ('no hand-authored netlist needed') and routes the agent to semantic_erc_validate for verified results. It implies but does not fully spell out the when-to-use boundary versus the plain semantic_erc_validate sibling.

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