get_netclass_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does disclose a meaningful trait: it reads from the project file and functions without a running KiCad instance. It doesn't cover permissions, error behavior, or file-not-found cases, but for a read-only config read the added context is solid.

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-loads the core action in the first clause, then the discriminating detail in the next sentence. The Args block is not redundant because the schema carries no parameter descriptions, so it earns its place.

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 no explanation, and the description covers purpose, selection rationale, and the one parameter's semantics. Nothing critical is missing for a simple read tool, though edge cases (bad path, missing project) are unaddressed.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains project_path accepts a .kicad_pro file or its folder and clarifies what the empty default resolves to ('project of the open board'). This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema, though the accepted path resolution details remain thin.

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 (Read) and resource (net classes and net-to-class patterns) plus the exact source (the project file). It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling list_netclasses by naming that tool and its different data source, so an agent can separate the two without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit condition for choosing this tool: 'works with KiCad closed,' contrasted against list_netclasses which 'reads the live values from a running KiCad.' The when-to-use and the alternative are both named directly.

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