get_nets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses almost nothing: it doesn't confirm the operation is read-only, doesn't state that an open project/design is required, and doesn't indicate what is returned or how 'limit' truncates results.

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?

One short sentence with the resource and default front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification.

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 simple two-optional-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the definition is minimally adequate. It still leaves an agent guessing about required session state and the shape of returned net records.

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 both 'limit' and 'pattern' are already documented with their defaults. The description merely restates the pattern default rather than adding syntax or matching semantics (e.g., whether the pattern matches hierarchical names).

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Search for nets' with a default wildcard pattern, which an agent can map to the Vivado get_nets concept. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-siblings like get_ports, get_cells, or list_bd_cells.

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 no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and never names an alternative such as get_ports or get_cells. The only usage signal is the implicit wildcard default, which the schema already states.

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