obj_copy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the non-obvious side effect that selection is cleared after copying and that the result goes to the system clipboard (overwriting prior clipboard contents is implied but not stated). It stops short of covering undo-ability or behavior on an empty match set.

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?

The behavior summary is front-loaded in the first line and the details follow compactly; the Args block is tight. The Returns section is partly redundant since an output schema exists, but it is short and harmless.

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 two-parameter tool with zero annotation coverage and undocumented schema fields, the description covers mechanism, side effects, both parameters, and the return shape. Remaining gaps (clipboard overwrite semantics, behavior with no matches, document prerequisite) are moderate rather than blocking.

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 it largely does: object_type is explained as an Altium schematic object type cross-referenced to obj_query, and filter is described as pipe-separated property=value conditions combined with AND logic. It omits any concrete filter syntax example, which would have made the format unambiguous.

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 states a specific verb and resource (copy matching schematic objects to the system clipboard) plus a clear three-step sequence: select by filter, copy, clear selection. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like obj_select, obj_query, or obj_batch_modify, other than a parenthetical pointer to obj_query for object types.

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?

Usage is only implied: the reader can infer you call this when you want a filtered set of objects on the clipboard. There is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over obj_select or obj_batch_modify, no prerequisite (an open schematic document must presumably be active), and no note on what happens when the filter matches nothing.

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