proj_cross_probe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the highlight side effect and that the call is confirmed by a return dictionary. However, it omits preconditions (must a document be open/active?) and side effects such as whether it switches tabs, scrolls, or clears existing highlights.

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 sentence is front-loaded and the argument list is compact. 'Returns: Dictionary confirming the operation' is low-value padding since an output schema already exists.

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 simple two-parameter navigation tool with an output schema, this covers the essentials: what it does, both arguments, and the accepted target values. Only prerequisites (active document, prior selection state) are missing.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate: it documents both parameters, gives designator examples ('U1', 'R8'), and critically supplies the allowed values 'schematic' or 'pcb' for target even though the schema defines no enum. It does not mention that target defaults to schematic.

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 — 'Jump to and highlight a component' — plus the two possible target domains. An agent can distinguish it from read-only siblings like proj_find_component or proj_get_component_info, though the description doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 implied by the purpose (navigate the view to a component), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives among the many sibling tools such as obj_switch_view, obj_highlight_net, or proj_find_component.

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