get_net

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.