Inspect a schematic

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that: the read is strictly validated, the returned content is summarized rather than raw geometry, and connectivity is deliberately out of scope. It does not discuss limits or pagination behavior for this specific read, keeping it below a 5.

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?

A single dense sentence-pair, front-loaded with what is read before the sibling routing. No filler, though the middle clause packs four sibling disambiguations which makes it feel dense rather than tight.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey what comes back; it does list the summary categories (labels, fonts, title fields, geometry counts) and notes connectivity must come from netlist_export. What it omits is the shape or size of that summary (e.g. counts vs. full lists), which leaves a small gap for a tool with no documented 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (path, workspace, compareWith) are already documented, including extension auto-append and workspace default resolution. The description only restates the compare behavior ('Optionally compare labels with another drawing'), adding no syntax or semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Read) and resource (strictly validated GDF/SYM schematic summary) and enumerates the payload: labels, fonts, title fields and geometry counts. It also names the sibling tools it is not (gdf_geometry, gdf_edit, netlist_export), so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: gdf_geometry for paginated original coordinates/instances/pin positions, gdf_edit for modifying existing v6 geometry, netlist_export for electrical connectivity. This covers both when-to-use-this and when-to-use-alternatives, with the deciding condition attached to each.

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