proj_find_component

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does substantial work: it discloses case-insensitive partial matching, that project_path defaults to the active project, the shape of the returned data, and a strong caveat that symbol metadata is not ground truth and datasheets must be consulted. It does not state the operation is read-only explicitly or describe error/no-match behavior, which keeps it below 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first line, followed by the discipline caveat, then structured Args/Returns blocks, which makes it easy to scan. The Returns section largely restates what the output schema already provides and the datasheet paragraph is somewhat long, so it is efficient but not maximally tight.

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?

With three parameters, no annotations, and a documented output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to invoke it correctly: search semantics, property options, project defaulting, and the caveat about interpreting results. Only marginal items (no-match behavior, read-only confirmation) are absent.

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% and the schema has no enums, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning — and it supplies all of it: concrete search_text examples ("U1", "100nF", "LM317"), the exact allowed values for search_by ("designator", "value", "comment") with its default, and the None-means-active-project behavior for project_path.

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 ("Search for components") plus an explicit scope ("across all project sheets") and match semantics ("case-insensitive partial match against the chosen property"). This is enough to distinguish it from siblings like proj_get_component_info, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 context is implied by the datasheet-discipline block ("If you're searching by a part number / comment to answer a technical question"), which tells the agent one scenario this tool serves. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative for cases like looking up one known component (proj_get_component_info) or querying the PCB side (pcb_get_components).

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