Get Component Geometry

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the output scope (the specific bbox categories) but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as behavior with no refs, missing components, or error handling. This is adequate given the annotations, but not especially rich.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and output list. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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 output schema covers return values, and the tool is simple. The only minor gap is that it does not clarify whether at least one of refs/reference is needed, but with both optional and no further complexity, this is sufficient.

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 schema fully describes both parameters (refs and reference) with clear descriptions, so the description does not need to add much. It does not discuss parameter interaction or requirements, but with 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 returns separated footprint geometry bounding boxes and enumerates the specific geometry types (body, pads, courtyard, keepout, fab, silk, text). This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_component_properties or get_component_pads.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need footprint geometry bounding boxes. It provides clear context but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, stopping short of the highest tier of guidance.

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