sch_get_symbol

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only what content is returned (pins with numbers/names/types/positions), which is largely redundant with the output schema; it adds little behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 sentence that front-loads the resource and its returned detail, with the use-case clause last. Every clause contributes; nothing is wasted.

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 simple retrieval scope, full schema coverage, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description supplies enough to call the tool correctly. It could mention error behavior for a missing ref, but that is a minor omission for a read-only getter.

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 coverage is 100%, with both required parameters (schematic_path, ref) documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format details for ref or path, so the schema carries the burden and baseline 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?

States a specific resource ('one placed symbol') and enumerates the returned pin attributes (number, name, electrical type, sheet position), so an agent knows it retrieves a single symbol's full pin-out. It does not name sibling tools such as sch_list_components or sym_info to differentiate, but the scope is unambiguous.

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?

Provides a clear use case – 'what you need to wire to it' – which tells the agent to call it when pin-level wiring data for a specific placed symbol is required. It offers no explicit exclusions or named alternatives, so the agent must infer that list-level tools are for enumeration.

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