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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses what the tool returns (properties, pins, net names) but does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, possible error conditions, or how missing references are handled. The behavior is largely inferable from 'Get', but not fully transparent.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It strikes the right balance of specificity and brevity for a simple get tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, the description lacks parameter semantics and usage guidance, leaving minor gaps. For a one-parameter tool, this is adequate but not complete.

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 coverage is 0% and the description does not clarify the 'reference' parameter beyond its name. The agent must guess it refers to a component reference designator; the description provides no additional meaning that the schema's type string does not already give.

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 action ('Get one component') and the specific contents (properties, pins, resolved net names), which distinguishes it from siblings like list_components (which returns multiple) and get_pin/get_net (which target separate 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 on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. It does not mention that list_components should be used for multiple components, or that get_pin/get_net are for individual pins/nets. The usage context is only implied.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core action ('Return a compact pin-to-net map') but does not mention side effects, error cases, or what 'compact' implies about the output. It does not address whether the operation is read-only (likely) or what happens if the reference is invalid or not found.

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, densely worded sentence that states the key action and target resource without any filler. It is front-loaded with the primary outcome and appropriately brief for a simple one-parameter tool.

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?

Given the tool is simple (one parameter), the description is still incomplete. It lacks usage context (e.g., current schematic dependency) and fails to clarify parameter semantics. While an output schema exists (which may cover return format), the description does not address when to invoke this tool among siblings, leaving the agent with ambiguity.

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 coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the 'reference' parameter beyond the tool's context. It implicitly suggests the parameter is a component reference designator, but it gives no format, example, or clarification about how to obtain it. The description adds minimal value over the parameter name.

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 a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('pin-to-net map for an MCU or any multi-pin component'). It distinguishes the tool's scope from generic component details, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative sibling tools like get_pin or get_component, so it lacks explicit differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions, prerequisites (e.g., that a schematic must be open), or when to prefer other sibling tools like trace_signal or validate_pinmap. Only the implicit behavior is stated.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation (get) and the result contents, but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, how it handles missing nets, or any error conditions. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 filler. Every element (verb, resource, exactness, return contents) serves a purpose. It is exemplarily concise and structured.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, return values are adequately covered elsewhere. However, the description lacks usage guidelines, error-handling details, and any indication of read-only behavior. Since there are nine sibling tools, the absence of routing context makes this incomplete, even for a simple one-parameter tool.

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 the single 'name' parameter. It adds that the name must be 'exact', which is minimal information. It does not mention case-sensitivity, format, wildcards, or other constraints beyond exactness. The description adds little value over the schema's type definition.

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 ('Get'), a resource ('net'), and the exact matching requirement ('by exact name'), while also specifying the returned content ('labels and all connected component pins'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_nets (which lists all nets) and trace_signal (which traces a signal path).

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies the need for an exact net name, but does not mention when to prefer list_nets for enumeration or trace_signal for signal flow. No when/when-not or alternative references are provided.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only the action 'Get' and the output, but does not explicitly confirm that it is read-only, describe side effects, or note any permissions or error behaviors. The description adds little beyond the basic operation itself.

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, efficient sentence of ten words, front-loaded with the verb and object. Every word contributes to the core meaning, with no redundant or vague phrasing. It is appropriately concise for a straightforward get operation.

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?

Although an output schema exists (covering return values), the description does not explain the domain-specific term 'resolved electrical net' or provide any parameter context. It also omits edge-case behavior or error conditions. For a tool with two undocumented parameters and no annotations, the description is not complete enough for reliable invocation.

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 explain the meaning of 'reference' and 'pin_number'. The description does not mention either parameter, leaving the agent to infer their semantics solely from the parameter names. This is a significant gap given the lack of schema descriptions.

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 action 'Get' and the specific resource 'one component pin', and explains the result includes its 'resolved electrical net'. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_components or get_component, which focus on components, and list_nets/get_net, which focus on nets. The purpose is 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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The tool name and description imply it is for fetching a single pin's net, but there is no mention of when not to use it or comparison to trace_signal or get_net. Usage is inferred from context rather than explicitly stated.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a read-only listing action but does not mention pagination, sorting, result limits, error behavior, or the structure of the returned list. The description stops at the surface action without revealing any additional behavioral traits an agent would need to anticipate.

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, lean sentence. It leads with the core action and resource, then appends the filtering options. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition. Excellent conciseness.

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 tool is simple (one optional parameter) and an output schema exists (so return structure is defined elsewhere). The description covers the primary function and filter names, but it omits how the query string should be formatted and what happens when the query is empty (does it return all components?). This leaves ambiguity for an agent trying to construct a valid call, so the description is not fully complete despite the existing output schema.

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?

The input schema has a single parameter 'query' with zero description (0% coverage). The description partially compensates by stating that filtering can be done by reference, value, or library id, which gives meaning to the query parameter. However, it does not explain the query syntax (e.g., how to combine filters, exact vs. substring match) or the default behavior when query is empty. It adds some semantic value but not enough to fully bridge the schema gap.

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 and resource: 'List schematic components', and adds optional filter dimensions (reference, value, library id). It clearly distinguishes this list operation from siblings like get_component (which retrieves a single component) or list_nets (which lists nets). The purpose is unambiguous and easy to act on.

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. The description never mentions 'use this to list all components' or 'use get_component for a single component'. Agents are left to infer usage from the name and sibling context, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.

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

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, but it never states that this is a read-only operation, what 'resolved' means, whether results are paginated, or what the response structure is. The output schema exists but its content isn't disclosed here, so the agent is left without context on side effects or safety.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. The key action and optional filtering are presented upfront. Structure is efficient, though it could benefit from one more sentence on usage guidance.

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 tool is simple (one optional param) and has an output schema, so the description needn't explain return values. However, given that no annotations exist, the lack of any statement about read-only nature or how it relates to sibling tools leaves the context incomplete for guiding an agent to correct usage.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning to the single 'query' parameter by stating it can filter 'by net name or connected pin.' However, it doesn't specify the exact format (e.g., whether it's a substring, exact match, or how to combine name+pin), so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 clear verb-resource pair: 'List resolved nets' with optional filtering. This distinguishes it from sibling get_net (which implies fetching a single net), though it doesn't explicitly state the difference. The filtering clause adds specificity.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_net or trace_signal. The description implies a listing/filtering role but doesn't state conditions or exclusions. An agent must infer when list_nets is preferred over other net-related tools.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions building a graph but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether the file is read-only, whether state is modified, error behavior for missing files). The output schema exists, but behavioral traits beyond reading are omitted, making this insufficient for a load-operation tool.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and outcome. There is zero redundancy, and every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's role as an apparent entry point to a suite of schematic tools, the description lacks critical context: it does not say it must be used first, nor does it mention prerequisites or error cases. The output schema covers return structure, but the operational context (e.g., needing to open a file before other tools) is absent. This is incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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 adds that 'path' refers to a local KiCad .kicad_sch file, giving more meaning than the bare parameter name. However, it lacks constraints like absolute path requirement, file existence, or permission needs, so it only partially covers the parameter semantics.

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 a specific verb ('Open') and resource (local KiCad .kicad_sch file) with a defined outcome (build its canonical circuit graph). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on an already-loaded schematic, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 on when to use this tool versus siblings. It does not state that it should be called before other schematic tools, nor any conditions or exclusions. The role as an entry point is implied but not articulated, leaving the agent to infer the workflow.

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

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 states that it returns summary information, without mentioning what happens if no schematic is loaded, whether it is a read-only operation, or any error conditions. This is a significant gap for an operation that depends on prior state.

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, efficient sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the action ('Return') and the resource ('summary information') immediately, making it easy to parse. It is appropriately sized for a simple no-argument tool.

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?

Given the low complexity, a short description is acceptable. The output schema (present) covers return value details. The description mentions the 'current schematic' which implies a prerequisite, though it does not explicitly state what happens if none is loaded. This is a minor gap for an otherwise simple tool.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so per the baseline rule it earns a 4. The description adds context about the 'currently loaded schematic' which hints at a state dependency rather than input parameters. It does not need to explain any parameter meaning since there are none.

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 verb 'Return' and the resource 'summary information for the currently loaded schematic.' It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like list_components or get_component, though it does not explicitly name any alternative. The term 'summary' implies an overview, which is distinct from the detailed queries offered by 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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. It does not mention that it should be used to get a quick overview or that list_components etc. should be used for specifics. There is no mention of preconditions like needing a schematic loaded first, although 'currently loaded' implies it.

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

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.

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the comparison action, without revealing whether the operation is read-only, what happens on mismatch, or how the 'reference' parameter affects behavior. The example explains input format but not the operational semantics, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 concise—two sentences—with the purpose front-loaded and a useful example included. There is no redundant content; every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's input format and purpose.

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, the description omits critical context. It doesn't explain what 'reference' refers to (likely a schematic or netlist identifier), what the output indicates (e.g., match/mismatch), or any necessary prerequisites. The example covers only the 'expected' parameter, leaving the tool incomplete for an agent attempting to use it correctly.

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 document parameters. It does explain 'expected' with a concrete example, clarifying that it maps pin names/numbers to net labels. However, 'reference' is completely undefined, leaving half the parameters without any semantic explanation, which is a notable gap.

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: 'Compare firmware pin expectations with schematic nets.' It uses a specific verb ('compare') and identifies the resources involved, distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_mcu_pinmap' which retrieves data rather than validating it. The example further clarifies the input format for 'expected'.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that this is for validation or specify conditions under which it should be preferred over sibling tools like 'get_mcu_pinmap' or 'trace_signal'. There is no when-not guidance or mention of prerequisites.

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