Get Schematic Component

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by stating that it returns 'ALL properties' including custom BOM/sourcing fields and label positions, which goes beyond what the annotations express. It also clarifies that it returns complete state information useful for inspection before edits. No contradiction with 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by a concise enumeration of return contents and a usage hint. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or filler text. It is well-structured and easy to scan.

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 that an output schema exists and the tool is a simple read-only getter with only two well-documented parameters, the description fully covers the necessary context. It explains what data is returned, the inclusion of both built-in and custom fields, and when to use it. No important gaps remain.

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% description coverage for both parameters (reference, schematicPath). The description does not add additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema specifies; it mentions the schematic context but not any new syntax or constraints. Baseline 3 applies because schema adequately documents parameters.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('component info from a schematic'), and precisely defines the scope: position, every field's value, and each field's label position. It distinguishes itself from broader component tools by focusing on schematic component data and explicitly mentions included built-in and custom fields. The naming and details make the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly says to use this tool before edit_schematic_component or set_schematic_component_property, providing clear context for when it is appropriate. It also mentions planning label repositioning. It does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternative read tools, but the guidance is actionable and the scoping is clear.

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