list_vias

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but 'list' reasonably implies a read-only operation. It adds no further behavioral context — no mention of scope limits, pagination, or whether hidden vias are included — so it is only minimally adequate.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; the core action comes first and the optional modifier follows.

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 one-parameter list tool with an output schema describing return values, the description is just barely sufficient. It omits what a missing/empty filter means and leaves the net filter's accepted format undocumented, but nothing critical for invocation is missing.

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%, so the description must compensate. It identifies the single parameter's purpose (filter by net), which maps to net_filter, but gives no format or syntax guidance for the net name/value.

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 and resource ('List vias on the board'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling list tools like list_tracks, list_zones, and list_pads. It is unambiguous, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings.

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 phrase 'optionally filtered by net' implies when the filter is useful, but the description never states when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_items_by_net or get_connected_items, which overlap in scope.

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