proj_get_component_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does: it discloses that each call triggers a project compile, that a stale-cache hierarchical compile can take 30-60s, that with_pin_nets=False drops to sub-second by skipping Project.DM_Compile, and that compile-bound calls may legitimately need 60-90s so timeout should be raised. The datasheet-discipline paragraph additionally warns that returned metadata is not authoritative.

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-loads the highest-value fact (batch tool / do not loop) before anything else, and uses short labeled paragraphs. It is however on the long side and repeats the sub-second-vs-compile point several times across the Performance note and the Args block, plus a Returns paragraph that duplicates the output schema.

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 5-parameter read tool with no annotations, the definition covers cost model, parameter trade-offs, timeout tuning, return contents, and a downstream discipline rule. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly or cheaply is 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, and it does: all five parameters are explained in the Args block, including the default-project behavior of project_path, the exact performance consequence of each boolean, and the units/usage of timeout (seconds, raise to ~90 for compile-bound calls). This is meaning well beyond the bare type definitions.

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 full information about a single component') and immediately distinguishes it from the batch sibling proj_get_component_info_many. The scope limit (single component) is stated twice, so there is no ambiguity about cardinality.

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?

Explicit routing rule: if more than one component is needed, use the batch tool, with the reason given (looping is a wall-time sink). It also gives conditional guidance for each flag ('use the default with_pin_nets=True only when you actually need to know what each pin is wired to'; with_parameters=False for a cheapest 'is this designator placed?' probe).

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