pcb_get_net_rules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that: no scope of rules returned, no indication of whether rules come from the active document or the netlist, no relationship to the manage_* rule tools.

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 four-word sentence with no filler and the action front-loaded. It is efficient, though it borders on under-specification rather than optimal conciseness.

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?

For a rules-retrieval tool surrounded by several near-identical rule siblings and with no output schema, the description does not say what the returned rules look like or how they relate to design rules versus net classes. The agent is left to guess at the tool's exact role.

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 100%, so the document and instance_id parameters are fully documented in the schema, including UUID sourcing and multi-instance behavior. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Get net-specific design rules"), so an agent knows it retrieves per-net rule data. However, it does not distinguish itself from the close siblings pcb_get_design_rules and pcb_manage_net_rules, leaving ambiguity about which one to pick.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this instead of pcb_get_design_rules (global rules) or pcb_manage_net_rules (rule mutation). The agent must infer the distinction from the name alone, with no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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