search_nets

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. It says what comes back, but omits regex flavor/anchor semantics, case sensitivity, whether results are capped by the limit default of 200, ordering, and error behavior on an invalid pattern or unknown project.

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 compact sentence, front-loaded with the match semantics and followed by the return shape. Nothing is wasted and nothing needs reordering.

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?

With an output schema present, return values are covered elsewhere, but for a search tool with zero annotation coverage and 0% parameter documentation, the description should still cover regex semantics and limit behavior. Those gaps leave an agent guessing about result truncation and match rules.

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% for all three parameters. The description only hints that "pattern" is a regex; "project" and "limit" get no explanation of expected format or effect (e.g., truncation at 200).

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 ("Regex search over net names") plus the return payload ("name and pin count"), which cleanly separates it from get_net and search_components. It stops short of naming those siblings as alternatives, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 never says when to use this versus get_net (exact-name lookup) or search_components (same search over the other resource type), and gives no prerequisites such as whether the project must exist. Usage is only inferable from the tool name.

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