Get Elements In Region

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read nature is covered. The description adds specificity about the element types (symbols, wires, labels) and region, but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as coordinate system nuances or handling of sub-sheets. This is adequate but not 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?

The description is two sentences: the first gives the action and scope, the second gives the use case. No redundant words, no repetition of schema or annotations. It is front-loaded and 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 presence of an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool. It explains the purpose, scope, and ideal usage context without needing to detail return values or safety since those are already provided by structured data.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all five parameters (schematicPath and four coordinates). The description adds no extra parameter-level semantics, but the schema already handles the meaning, 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 clearly states a specific action ('List') and a specific resource ('symbols, wires, and labels') within a rectangular region. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_schematic_view_region or find_overlapping_elements by explicitly naming the element types returned.

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 provides a clear situational context ('before modifying it') that signals read-only reconnaissance use. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, but the stated use case is workable guidance for when to invoke this tool.

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