trace_signal

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only describes the basic operation without stating whether it is read-only, whether it requires specific privileges, or anything about side effects or failure modes. The term 'resolved' hints at some internal processing, but no further behavioral traits are disclosed.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for the core action, but the brevity comes at the cost of missing crucial parameter and usage details. Still, structure-wise it is efficient and to the point.

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?

Despite having an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description is incomplete. It omits parameter semantics and usage guidance, which are essential for an agent to correctly invoke the tool. For a two-parameter tool with no schema descriptions, this is a significant 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%, so the tool description must explain the parameters. It does not explain what 'reference' means (likely a component designator) or what 'pin_number' refers to. The description only repeats the concept of a pin without adding any semantic detail, leaving agents to guess the intended format or meaning.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('trace') and resource ('one pin to every other pin on the same resolved electrical net'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_pin (returns a single pin) and get_net (returns net info), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when you need to identify all pins connected to the same net as a given pin. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, though the context is clear enough for an agent to infer the appropriate scenario.

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