get_net

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure and does well by listing the returned pin fields and the conditional PCB routing statistics. It stops short of covering error behavior, missing-net handling, or the effect of disabling routing details.

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 tightly packed sentence with no wasted text. The primary return content is front-loaded before the conditional PCB routing details.

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?

The description explains the return shape well for a tool with no output schema, but it is incomplete on input semantics: project and include_routing are not described. For a three-parameter tool with no annotations, this leaves an important 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 description must compensate for all three parameters. It only implies the net parameter and vaguely gestures at routing behavior, while leaving project and include_routing unexplained.

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 clearly states that the tool retrieves all pins on a net and, when a PCB exists, routing statistics such as track length, width, vias, and pads. This is a specific resource and return scope, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling search_nets tool.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus search_nets or other siblings. The description implies detail retrieval for a known net, but it does not state prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions.

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