net

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

With no annotations, the description reveals key behaviors: grouping by component and pagination for large nets. However, it omits details on pagination mechanics (e.g., page size), response format, and what happens if the net does not exist. It adds value beyond the schema but lacks full transparency.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the main action and add a key behavioral detail (paginates). Every word earns its place, with no redundancy.

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 tool with no output schema, the description should explain return values. It does not. It also lacks details on pagination defaults and the 'project' parameter. While it covers the core functionality, it leaves significant gaps for an agent to correctly invoke and interpret results.

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 implicitly explains the 'name' parameter (net name) and 'page' (pagination), but fails to mention the 'project' parameter or its purpose. This leaves a gap for one of three parameters.

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 the tool's purpose: listing pins on a net, grouped by component. It uses a specific verb 'List' and resource 'pins on a net', and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'component' or 'trace' which serve different resources.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'component' or 'find'. The description implies usage for listing pins on a net, but does not specify when not to use it or mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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