Get Component Properties

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the list of returned properties, which is helpful context, but does not disclose error behavior or return format beyond what the output schema likely covers. It adds some value but not rich behavioral detail.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action ('Return all properties'), and concisely enumerates the property types. No unnecessary words or repetition, making it highly efficient.

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 simplicity, one parameter, and presence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It does not mention behavior for missing components, but for a read-only getter this is a minor gap. Overall it provides sufficient context for a well-scoped 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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage for the single 'reference' parameter with a clear description. The tool description does not add extra parameter semantics, but the schema already fully documents it, so the baseline score 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 all properties of a PCB component, listing specific properties (position, rotation, layer, value, footprint). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_component_pads and get_component_geometry, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 for retrieving component properties but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over sibling getters like get_component_pads or get_component_geometry. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, leaving guidance implied rather than explicit.

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