obj_get_document_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It clearly indicates a read-style information query and distinguishes schematic versus PCB contents, but it does not discuss side effects, permissions, failure cases, or pagination. For a simple zero-parameter info tool that is adequate but not rich.

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 definition is front-loaded with the core purpose and then lists type-specific details compactly. The final returns note is slightly redundant given the output schema, but overall it is efficient and easy to scan.

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 zero-parameter document-info tool, the description is largely complete: it names the active document, says the response depends on schematic versus PCB, and lists representative fields. With an output schema present, return-value detail need not be fully restated.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The schema is empty and schema coverage is 100%, making the baseline appropriate.

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 names a specific verb and resource: getting comprehensive info about the active document. It further clarifies the purpose by listing schematic and PCB fields, so an agent can tell what it does. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from related sibling tools such as app_get_active_document or proj_get_board_info.

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?

The description implies when the tool is useful by saying it returns comprehensive info about the active document, and it notes the result differs for schematics versus PCBs. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives to consider.

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