trace_net

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: it follows wires segment-aware (catching mid-wire labels) and tracks same-name FLAGs (LTspice's name-based nets). This provides algorithmic insight not otherwise available, fulfilling the transparency requirement without contradicting 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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and then expands with selective details (segment-aware, FLAG handling). Every clause adds value, and it avoids redundancy with the schema. It is concise without sacrificing completeness.

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 a moderate complexity tool with an output schema present, the description covers all necessary aspects: input methods, output types, and practical use cases. It does not need to explain return values because the output schema handles that. The description is self-sufficient and leaves no significant 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, with each parameter having a description. The description itself does not add new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., pin syntax, coordinate alternative, format choices). It only reinforces existing information, so a 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's purpose: to report everything electrically connected to a net, with specific input types (pin, net label, or coordinates) and exact outputs (labels, pins, flags, wire vertices). The phrase 'what's on net X' further clarifies its intent and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_components or connect.

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 gives explicit use cases: answer 'what's on net X', confirm a connect landed, spot an accidental short. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives. The when-to-use guidance is strong, but the absence of when-not or alternative tools prevents a 5.

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