sch_list_components

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds meaningful operational context by stating it reads from the file and works while KiCad is closed, plus it discloses optional pin-coordinate inclusion. It does not cover pagination/limit behavior, but the annotation bar is already met.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core action and scope come first, followed by the returned fields and the important closed-file note. Every sentence earns its place without redundant preamble.

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 rich annotations and an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values or safety. It clearly covers the core listing behavior and one key operational constraint, though it could better address multi-sheet handling or alternative tools.

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 80%, so most parameters are already documented. The description mentions optional pin coordinates, which loosely maps to include_pins, but it does not add meaningful semantics for ref_prefix, include_power, or limit beyond the schema.

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 verb (list) and resource (every placed symbol on one schematic sheet), so an agent can tell this is a schematic-component listing tool. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings such as sch_get_symbol, so it misses the top band.

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?

Usage is implied by the description: list components from one schematic sheet, and it notes this works with KiCad closed. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or alternative tool routing against siblings like sch_get_symbol or pcb_list_items.

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