proj_get_component_info_many

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real behavioral context: the compile happens once per batch not per designator, and the 'DATASHEET DISCIPLINE' block warns that returned parameters/metadata are not authoritative and that _datasheet_guidance/_datasheet_parts are emitted. It never explicitly states the call is side-effect-free, which is the one behavioral trait an agent still has to infer.

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 batch/prefer-over-sibling claim, then performance modes, then a safety caveat. It is long and the Args block partly restates names, but that restatement is exactly what the 0%-coverage schema lacks, so most of it earns its place.

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?

Covers purpose, cost trade-offs, timeout tuning, output shape (components[], matched, requested, not_found[], guidance keys) and the datasheet caveat. With an output schema present and five undocumented params, nothing an agent needs to invoke correctly 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 does: every one of the five parameters is explained with its default and the consequence of changing it (compile skipped, compile once, poll-timeout raise on large hierarchical projects). This is meaningfully beyond the bare types/defaults in the schema.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource+scope ('Full per-component info for MANY designators in ONE round-trip') and explicitly positions itself against the singular sibling proj_get_component_info. An agent can tell immediately what it gets and why the batch form exists.

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 guidance: 'PREFER THIS over looping proj_get_component_info', plus concrete conditions for the cheaper modes (with_pin_nets=False for sub-second metadata, with_parameters=False for cheapest probe) and when to raise timeout. When-to-use and when-to-downgrade are both stated.

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