list_schematic_components

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is clear. The description adds a minor behavioral detail with 'all placed components', implying unplaced or library components are not included, but it does not elaborate on filtering, ordering, or output structure beyond what the output schema likely covers.

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: one opening sentence plus a single parameter definition. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes only essential information. No wasted 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?

For a simple read-only listing tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: the operation type, scope ('all placed components'), and parameter semantics. It does not mention edge cases like empty schematics or invalid paths, but these are not critical given the tool's simplicity and existing annotations.

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 carries the full burden. It explains schematic_path as 'Path to .kicad_sch file. Optional; omit to use the configured default.' This adds file-format context, optionality, and fallback behavior beyond the schema field alone, fully compensating for the lack of schema documentation.

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 'List all placed components in the schematic' with a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling list tools (e.g., list_schematic_labels, list_schematic_wires) by focusing on 'components', though it doesn't explicitly contrast with those alternatives.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The only usage context is the parameter description ('Optional; omit to use the configured default'), which explains the path argument but does not help select among the many list_schematic_* siblings.

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