pcb_get_components

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately conveys that the tool returns a component list, but it does not mention any side effects, prerequisites (e.g., active session), or error behavior. This is adequate but not rich, and since it's a read-only-style getter, the lack of additional detail is understandable.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the purpose without any fluff or repetition. Every word 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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema, the description could have elaborated on what the component list contains (e.g., reference designators, values). It is minimal but not misleading, covering the core action adequately.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions: 'session_id' and 'filter' with an example pattern. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'Get component list from a parsed design' clearly states a specific verb (get) and resource (component list), and it inherently distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pcb_get_nets, pcb_get_vias, and pcb_get_traces by naming 'components' as the target.

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 usage after a design is parsed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. It is clear enough but lacks explicit guidance on context or when-not-to-use.

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