altium_project_overview

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, it discloses the data source (live compiled project vs. disk), the 5 s short-lived cache with its default value, and how to bypass it. The untrusted-data warning is exactly the kind of safety context that prevents an agent from treating design-file strings as instructions.

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 short sentences, each with a distinct job: what it returns, where the data comes from, the untrusted-data caveat, and the cache/refresh behaviour. Contents are front-loaded and nothing is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists so return-shape explanation is optional, yet the description still summarises the payload categories, and it covers the two things an agent cannot infer: the live-compiled data source and the cache/refresh contract. Nothing needed to invoke it 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 coverage is 0% — the schema only gives type and default for refresh — so the description carries full burden and does: it explains that reads are cached ~5 s and that refresh=true triggers a recompile and re-read. The only parameter's semantics and side effect are fully specified.

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 enumerates exactly what the tool returns (designator-prefix counts, top footprints, components per sheet, sheet open/modified state), which separates it from siblings like altium_list_components or altium_bom_summary. The title and name alone ('overview') are vague, but the body text does the disambiguating work.

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?

It states the key precondition — data comes from the compiled project in the running Altium Designer, not saved files — and tells the agent how to get fresh data via refresh=true. It does not explicitly contrast itself with alternative summary tools, so it lands at a clear-context-without-exclusions 4.

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