lib_find_vault_components

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does well: read-only lookup implied, exact case-insensitive matching disclosed, all matches returned one per Design Item ID rather than first-hit, and lifecycle state reported by the library manager. It also warns about a bridge-stopping call, which is valuable risk context. Minor gap: no statement of performance cost or behavior with zero matches, though the Returns section covers the shape.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, but the body sprawls into an aside about EDMS interface documentation that reads like internal design rationale; it earns partial credit as usage guidance but bloats the entry. The Args/Returns blocks are useful but partly duplicate the prose above.

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 one-parameter read tool with no annotations, the description covers input semantics, matching rules, dedup behavior, return fields (which it lists even though an output schema exists), and the boundary of what it cannot do. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and to interpret an empty result.

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% for the single `name` parameter, so the description must compensate, and it does: `name` may be a comment, library reference or Design Item ID, matched exactly with case ignored. That is more than the bare string type in the schema. It does not discuss escaping or whitespace handling, so not a 5.

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 and resource: find the Design Item ID of a managed part by exact name, searching managed (Workspace) parts placed on open sheets. It explicitly scopes the search domain and names the sibling concept it is not (whole-Workspace search / Components panel lookup), so an agent can distinguish it from lib_search, lib_get_vault_component and lib_dblib_search.

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 says when this applies (part already placed on an open sheet), when it does not (part not yet used in the design — look it up in Altium's Components panel), and why whole-Workspace search is excluded (undocumented EDMS interfaces, bridge risk). That is when/when-not/alternative guidance in full.

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