kicad.list_components

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It partially compensates by disclosing what data is returned (references, values, positions), but lacks explicit read-only safety confirmation, prerequisite disclosure (e.g., whether an open schematic is required), or error behavior. The verb 'List' implies safety, but explicit confirmation is absent.

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?

A single, efficiently structured sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the action ('List'), specifies the domain ('in the schematic'), and ends with return value details. Every clause 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 has no input parameters and an output schema exists (per context signals), the description appropriately focuses on purpose and return value highlights. Minor gap: does not mention prerequisites (e.g., requiring an open project/schematic), which would be helpful given the sibling open_project tool.

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 tool has zero parameters with 100% schema coverage (empty object). With no parameters to document, this meets the baseline expectation. The description does not need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 ('List') with clear resource ('components in the schematic') and distinguishes from siblings like add_component/delete_component (mutation vs read) and list_footprints (schematic vs PCB). The addition of 'with references, values, and positions' clarifies the scope of returned data.

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 through the verb 'List' (inventory/enumeration vs manipulation), but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not clarify when to use this vs get_symbol_info for individual component details or search_symbols for finding specific types.

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