List Graphics

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior, and the description adds value by enumerating the types of items included (gr_line, gr_arc, etc.), giving the agent a concrete sense of what to expect. 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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core function and provides specific examples. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 simple list operation, one optional parameter, and a rich set of annotations plus an output schema, the description is complete. It conveys the type of content and examples, and the schema covers filtering and return structure.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the layer parameter already described as an optional filter. The tool description does not add further parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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 lists PCB graphic/drawing items with specific examples (gr_line, gr_arc, gr_rect, gr_text, dimensions). This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_graphic or update_graphic.

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 the tool is for retrieving graphic items, and the layer parameter suggests filtering usage. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool when enumeration of graphics is needed.

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