Get Component Pads

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond those annotations by specifying that it returns all pads along with positions, net assignments, and sizes. No contradictions exist, and the additional behavioral context is useful without being excessive.

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 action, target, and output content without any filler. It is concise and effectively structured for quick comprehension.

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 low complexity, full schema coverage, strong read-only annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It conveys the essential purpose and result content without needing to restate structured schema details.

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 already provides 100% coverage with descriptive definitions for both parameters: 'reference' is clearly explained and 'unit' has an enum with a default note. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Return all pads of a PCB component' and further specifies the returned data (positions, net assignments, sizes). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_pads or get_net_pads by anchoring it to a specific component reference designator.

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?

Usage context is only implied by the phrase 'of a PCB component'. There is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over sibling tools like get_pads, get_net_pads, or get_pad_position, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The user can infer the intended use, but the description does not explicitly state it.

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