lib_get_vault_component

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the load-then-discard behavior ('nothing reaches a sheet'), the multi-kind retry order with the default kind, and that library-manager failures are surfaced in diag rather than swallowed. It does not mention permissions, latency of repeated load attempts, or what placeable=false means concretely.

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 behavior, then Args and Returns in a clean structure. The prose is a little discursive ('Loads the item ... and throws it away again') and the Returns block largely restates the output schema, but nothing is 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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still lists the return keys, which is slightly redundant but helps an agent know that placeable/load_probe/diag are the decision-relevant fields. Combined with full parameter coverage and side-effect disclosure, an agent has what it needs to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate and does: design_item_id is identified as the required Design Item ID, vault is explained as usually omitted with a pointer to lib_get_vault_name, and lib_identifier_kind is fully enumerated (0 Any through 4 VaultName default) with a tip on discovering the right kind via obj_query.

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+resource: probe whether one managed Workspace component can be placed, explicitly without placing it. It names the sibling it mimics (sch_place_vault_components) and the one it is not (lib_find_vault_components / lib_get_component_details), so an agent can distinguish it immediately.

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?

Clear context: use it to verify placeability without a sheet mutation, and the note 'A part number is not looked up here, so bring the Design Item ID' steers agents away from a wrong input. It also points to lib_get_vault_name and obj_query for supporting lookups. No explicit when-not-to-use against lib_get_component_details, so not a 5.

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