match_components_to_parts

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'match', omitting details about side effects (e.g., updates to database), required permissions, output format, or error handling. The presence of an output schema is not mentioned in the description.

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 short sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It avoids verbosity but may be too brief, missing opportunities to front-load key information.

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?

Despite a simple tool, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'match' entails (e.g., partial matching, confidence scores), return behavior, or how it integrates with the KiCad workflow. The agent lacks critical context for correct invocation.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with accurate descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

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 clearly states the action 'match' and the resources 'KiCad components' to 'real parts', establishing a specific purpose. However, it does not differentiate from similar tools like 'search_parts' or 'identify', leaving some ambiguity about the exact matching process.

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 usage guidance is provided. The agent receives no information about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_parts' or 'analyze_kicad_project', nor any prerequisites or constraints.

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