get_schematic_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must imply behavioral traits. It states 'Get' which suggests a read operation, but does not explicitly confirm read-only, lack of side effects, or any prerequisites like file access permissions. The vague 'general information' leaves ambiguity about what the tool actually does.

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?

Description is a single sentence without unnecessary words, but it is overly terse and lacks important context. It is not wasteful but could be expanded with key details without losing conciseness.

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 presence of an output schema and a large set of sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It does not hint at what kind of information is returned (e.g., file metadata, component count, sheet hierarchy), which the output schema presumably contains but is not summarized.

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 100% coverage with a clear description for the single parameter 'file_path'. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, meeting the baseline expectation.

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?

Description states 'Get general information about a schematic file', which uses a verb and resource, but 'general information' is vague and does not distinguish from sibling tools like get_symbol_details or get_pcb_statistics that also retrieve specific aspects of a schematic.

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. With 38 sibling tools covering many specific queries (e.g., list_schematic_components, analyze_hierarchical_nets), the description should indicate the use case, such as retrieving metadata or file-level info.

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