altium_check_designators

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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations by disclosing the short-lived 5s cache, the refresh escape hatch, the in-memory-versus-saved-file data source, and a prompt-injection warning that result text is untrusted. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with what is checked, then data source, then trust caveat, then caching/refresh behavior. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the single optional parameter, the data-source caveat, and the cache semantics are all covered. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 0% and the single refresh parameter has no schema documentation, so the description must carry it — and it does, explaining that refresh=true recompiles and re-reads versus the default 5s cached read. It stops short of stating the cost or latency implications of a forced recompile.

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 (check) and resource (designators) and enumerates exactly the three problem classes it detects: duplicates, unannotated ones containing '?', and numbering gaps per prefix. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like altium_check_parameters or altium_compile_messages.

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?

Explains the operational context precisely: data comes from the compiled project in the running Altium Designer, not saved files, and refresh=true forces a recompile-and-reread. It does not name alternative sibling tools or explicitly state when to prefer one over another, so it falls short of a 5.

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