get_sheet_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's addition of 'including pin/label matching' provides some behavioral context but does not significantly expand beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 succinct: one sentence for purpose followed by two lines for args. It is front-loaded with the key action and includes no unnecessary words.

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 an output schema exists (though not provided), the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and parameters. However, it lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., whether the sheet must be loaded) and when the optional schematic_path is needed.

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 explains both parameters: 'sheet_uuid: UUID of the sheet' and 'schematic_path: Path to parent .kicad_sch'. This adds clear meaning beyond the schema's bare titles and defaults.

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 clearly states 'Get detailed info about a hierarchical sheet including pin/label matching', specifying the verb (get), resource (hierarchical sheet), and scope (detailed info with pin/label matching). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_schematic_summary or list_schematic_sheets.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or suggest sibling tools like get_schematic_summary or list_schematic_sheets. The usage context is only implied by the purpose.

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