Read original schematic geometry

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

Annotations already declare the safe-read profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds real context the annotations do not: pagination semantics for root records and nested collections preserving offsets/counts, and that no compiler or GUI is required. It does not state return shape or error behavior, but the added pagination detail is meaningful.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the core verb, each carrying distinct information (what is decoded, operating requirements, paging model, and the connectivity caveat). Minor flourish in 'Strictly' and a slightly list-heavy first sentence, but no filler.

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 complex eight-parameter tool with no output schema, the description communicates scope, paging behavior, and a key semantic caveat (geometry != connectivity). It could go further on what the returned records look like or how the views differ, but it covers enough for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all eight parameters including the view enum and the limit/offset/childLimit/childOffset paging fields. The description's mention of 'paginated root records and nested collections' corroborates the paging model but adds no syntax or defaults beyond the schema. 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 names a specific verb ('strictly decode') and an explicit resource set (GDF/SYM v2..6 coordinates, wires/buses, symbol definitions, instances, pin positions, text anchors), which is far more informative than the title. It carves out a boundary by stating geometry does not prove connectivity and routing that need to netlist_export. It stops short of distinguishing itself from near siblings like gdf_inspect or gdf_connections, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

There is one genuine exclusion ('use netlist_export for circuit connections'), which is useful. However there is no guidance on when to choose this over gdf_inspect, gdf_symbol_library, or sym_inspect, or what scenario (original vs compiled schematic) warrants it. Usage is largely implied by the enumerated data types.

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