pcb_get_components

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses the return envelope (components array, count, _datasheet_guidance, _datasheet_parts) and — unusually valuable — warns that library metadata in the response is not authoritative for electrical behavior. It does not cover failure modes (e.g., no active PCB) or coordinate/rotation units.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by two short, clearly separated blocks with headings (DATASHEET DISCIPLINE, Returns). Every sentence carries either an invocation hint or a behavioral caution; 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, so the Returns block is partly redundant but harmless, and the safety profile is trivially implied by 'Get'. The main gap is coordinate and rotation conventions (units, degrees, layer naming), which matter for a placement-data tool and are not covered by either the empty input schema or the description.

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 is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter guidance.

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 all components from the active PCB' — plus the payload fields (position, properties), so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as list_components, proj_get_component_info, or pcb_get_component_pads, which an agent could plausibly reach for instead.

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 'active PCB' scoping is implied usage guidance, and the DATASHEET DISCIPLINE block gives a conditional follow-up action (fetch the manufacturer datasheet before concluding anything about electrical behavior). But there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus the component-listing siblings, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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