get_sheet_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about the schematic_path default behavior and the pin/label matching feature, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like return format or error conditions. This aligns with the calibration example where annotations carry the safety burden and the description adds modest context.

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 description is extremely concise, with a one-sentence purpose and a clean parameter list. It front-loads the main action and provides exactly the necessary details without redundancy.

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?

Given the simple tool with two parameters, a read-only annotation, and an existing output schema, the description is adequate. It clearly states what the tool does and explains both parameters. The only gap is the lack of explicit usage exclusions, but the presence of an output schema and annotations reduces the burden.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: 'sheet_uuid: UUID of the sheet' and 'schematic_path: Path to parent .kicad_sch. Optional; omit to use the configured default.' This adds meaning beyond the schema's titles and default value.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get detailed info' with a clear resource 'hierarchical sheet' and adds the distinctive feature 'including pin/label matching'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_schematic_summary or list_schematic_sheets, which have different scopes.

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 description implies when to use this tool (when detailed hierarchical sheet info with pin/label matching is needed) but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. Since the context is clear and the tool's unique purpose is stated, it earns a 4 rather than a 3.

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