Summarize every board item belonging to a specified net in KiCad 10, returning counts by type and their IDs for quick net analysis.
Summarise every board item belonging to a net (counts by type + IDs).
Args: net_name: The net name, e.g. 'GND'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| net_name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the output shape ('counts by type + IDs'), and 'Summarise' implies a read-only operation, but it says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or behavior on an unknown/nonexistent net.
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?
Front-loaded single sentence plus an args block, with essentially no waste. Well sized for the operation.
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 needn't be explained; the description still summarizes them. For a simple one-param read query, this is largely complete, missing only usage routing and edge-case behavior.
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 coverage is 0% and the single param only has the title 'Net Name'. The description compensates partially by giving an example value ('GND'), which clarifies the expected format, but adds no rules for case-sensitivity or matching semantics.
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 ('Summarise') and resource ('every board item belonging to a net') with a clear output note (counts by type + IDs). This is distinguishable from list_nets or get_connected_items in spirit, though no sibling is explicitly named, so it falls short of a 5.
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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_connected_items or list_tracks. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and description, which is a clear gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.