get_symbol_instances

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond this: the schematic_path is optional and omitting it uses a configured default, and the tool specifically operates on the root schematic. However, it does not describe edge cases or return format, though an output schema exists.

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 concise: a single purpose sentence followed by a focused Args section. It is front-loaded with the main verb and resource, and every sentence earns its place without unnecessary verbosity.

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 tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, read-only annotations, and an output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, parameter semantics, and root-schematic scope. There is no notable gap for the intended complexity.

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?

The input schema provides no description for schematic_path (0% coverage). The description's Args section fully compensates by explaining the path format (.kicad_sch), its optionality, and the behavior when omitted (uses configured default). This gives clear meaning beyond 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?

The description clearly states the tool's action ('List all symbol instances') and the specific resource ('root schematic's symbolInstances table'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_schematic_components by pinpointing the exact data table and root scope.

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 does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state any exclusions (e.g., 'only works on root schematic; for sub-sheets use X'). Usage is implied by the purpose, but no comparative guidance is provided.

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