Get Component List

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

Annotations already declare the tool as readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no extra behavioral context about filter combination semantics, coordinate origin, or response size, but it does not contradict the annotations.

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 that states the primary action and the optional filters. It contains 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?

For a simple read-only list tool with an output schema, the description is sufficient to convey the core behavior. Minor gaps include not explaining how layer and boundingBox filters interact or noting the coordinate system origin, but these are non-critical for a basic list operation.

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 provides descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage), including unit, layer, and boundingBox. The tool description merely repeats that filters exist without adding new meaning, such as how multiple filters combine or the default coordinate unit behavior.

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 that the tool returns a list of all components on the PCB, with optional filters by layer or bounding box. This specific verb-resource pairing distinguishes it from component-specific tools like get_component_properties or find_component.

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 usage through its name and 'all components' phrasing, but it does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools such as find_component or list_graphics. No alternatives or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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