Fetch one CRUMB component in full detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds valuable context: windowed access to firmware source (pagination via sourceOffset), the concept of an 'analyze cap,' and inferred connection groups—behaviors not visible in annotations. This enriches the agent's understanding without contradiction.

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?

Two compact sentences deliver the core purpose and key differentiator without redundancy. The first sentence lists the return contents, the second positions it for iterative workflows. Every word earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not detail return fields. It covers the tool's purpose, the main resource, and a distinctive behavior (windowed source access). It does not explain topologyMode or expectedProjectDigest, but for a read-only companion with strong annotations and output schema, the context is adequate.

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 description coverage is 57%, covering path, componentId, sourceOffset, and expectedProjectDigest. The description adds meaning to includeGeometry and includeSourceCode by mentioning geometry and source code, and 'past the analyze cap' relates to sourceOffset. However, topologyMode is left unexplained, and the description does not elaborate on all parameter interactions, so it partially compensates.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Returns') and identifies the exact resource ('a single component by id') and its contents (parameters, terminals, geometry, connection groups, firmware source). It also positions itself as 'read-back companion' for iterative work, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that analyze or list components.

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 phrase 'read-back companion for iterative work on one part' implies when to use this tool (when focusing on a single component), and the mention of 'past the analyze cap' hints at an alternative (crumb_analyze_design) that has a cap. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, so it stops short of full guidance.

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