list_tracks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation and net_filter matching is described, but prerequisites such as an open board and any scope limitations are not stated.

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 tool's purpose, then efficiently lists the two parameters with no redundant or filler text. Every sentence and arg entry 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?

For a simple read-only listing tool with an output schema present, the description supplies enough to invoke it correctly. It omits broader usage context relative to sibling tools, but return values are covered by the output schema.

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% and parameter titles are bare, but the description fully compensates: layer is documented as a layer-name restriction with an 'F.Cu' example, and net_filter is documented as a case-insensitive substring match on the net name.

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 the specific verb 'List' and the resources 'copper tracks and arc tracks on the board'. It distinguishes itself by resource type from sibling list_* tools such as list_vias and list_zones, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

Provides no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The listing action and optional filters imply inspection of existing tracks, which is minimum viable.

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