list_components

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return content (position, rotation, footprint, properties), which is genuinely helpful context, but says nothing about scope limits, pagination, or behavior on an empty/unsaved schematic.

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 lead sentence is well front-loaded, but the payload is padded: the Returns prose duplicates the existing output schema, and the Examples block demonstrates return shape rather than any parameter usage for a zero-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?

For a no-parameter list tool with an output schema present and no annotations, the definition is essentially complete — the agent knows what it returns. Only the routing guidance against sibling listing/filtering tools is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The Args section only documents an implicit 'ctx' MCP context that isn't part of the schema, adding nothing for the caller to reason about.

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+resource: 'List all components in the current schematic.' The word 'all' implies no filtering, which implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling filter_components, but that sibling is never named, so differentiation relies on inference.

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 when-to-use guidance or alternatives are provided. Given siblings like filter_components, get_component_pins, and get_schematic_info, an agent gets no help deciding when this unfiltered listing is the right call versus a filtered or more targeted query.

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