List Schematic Texts

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description doesn't need to restate these. It adds value by describing the return fields (position, angle, font size, etc.) and the optional substring filter, giving the agent a clear picture of what to expect. It does not disclose any side effects or error conditions, but those are less critical given the strong annotation coverage.

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 states the primary purpose, and the second explains what is returned and the optional filter. It is concise, front-loaded, and every sentence contributes meaningful information without 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?

For a simple read-only list operation with complete parameter documentation, strong annotations, and an output schema, the description is fully adequate. It covers the purpose, the data returned, and the filter behavior, leaving no significant gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 fully covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), including the case-insensitive substring filter. The description's mention of the filter adds no new meaning beyond the schema; it effectively restates what the schema already documents. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 identifies the tool's function: listing free-form text annotations in the schematic. It specifies the resource type and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_schematic_labels by mentioning notes, headings, and documentation strings, which are separate from labels.

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 clear context by specifying the resource is free-form text annotations, implying it's not for labels or other schematic elements. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or exclude specific cases, such as net labels. The scope is clear but lacks an explicit 'when not to use' statement.

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