obj_get_font_spec

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does reasonably well: 'Reads the Altium font table' discloses that this is a passive lookup with no mutation. It does not state behavior for an invalid or out-of-range font_id (error vs. empty result), which is the main remaining gap for a lookup tool.

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 action in the first sentence, and the Args/Returns blocks are conventional and skimmable. The explicit Returns list largely duplicates the existing output schema, which is mild redundancy but not harmful.

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?

Given a single-parameter tool with an output schema, the definition covers purpose, parameter provenance, and return shape. The only missing piece is failure behavior for an unrecognized font ID; everything else an agent needs to invoke it correctly is present.

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% (only a type/title), so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains that font_id is an integer-style ID sourced from an object's FontId property, which is more useful than a bare type. It does not give range or validity constraints.

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 ('Get font properties for a given font ID') and additionally names the backing source ('Reads the Altium font table'). This clearly distinguishes it from the inverse sibling obj_get_font_id, which produces the ID rather than consuming it.

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?

Explains the workflow precondition: the font_id comes 'from an object's FontId property', implicitly pointing at obj_get_font_id. It lacks explicit when-not guidance or error conditions, but the context for calling it is unambiguous.

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