get_connected_items

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does disclose the connectivity semantics (copper-connected) and that input is identified by KIID, which is meaningful context. However, it omits whether results are direct-only or transitive, whether it is read-only, and any scope/limit behavior.

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 short lines, front-loaded with the core purpose before the Args block. Efficient, with no wasted sentences, though the Args formatting is slightly verbose for a single parameter.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Still, for a connectivity query the traversal depth (direct vs transitive) and result scope are materially important and unstated, leaving a genuine gap.

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% (the schema only says 'string'), so the description must compensate, and it does: it names the argument and clarifies it is a KIID for a source track/via/pad. That is real meaning beyond the schema, though it could note valid KIID formats.

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 specific verb (find) and resource (items copper-connected to a given item), which is distinguishable from sibling queries like get_items_by_net or list_tracks. It does not explicitly contrast with those siblings, but the connectivity-based scope is clear.

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 alternatives (e.g., get_items_by_net for net-membership queries), and no prerequisites. The agent must infer that this is a post-selection connectivity exploration tool.

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