lib_get_component_details

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 adds the word 'live' to signal real-time data, but does not disclose potential side effects, failure modes, external dependencies, or permissions. For a simple read operation this is adequate, but it lacks deeper behavioral context.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient and to the point.

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's minimal annotations and parameter descriptions, the description is too thin to fully enable correct selection and invocation. It does not distinguish this tool from the many library-related siblings (e.g., lib_get_footprint_info, lib_get_bom_with_pricing), nor does it explain the source parameter. The presence of an output schema covers return values, but other contextual gaps remain.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the lcsc_code_or_mpn parameter by noting it accepts either an LCSC code or MPN, but it does not explain the 'source' parameter, its valid values, or why the default is 'jlcsearch.' This leaves a key parameter ambiguous.

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 ('Return') and resource ('live component detail') and scopes it to 'a specific LCSC code or MPN.' This clearly conveys the tool's function, but it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like lib_search_components or lib_get_symbol_info, so it falls short of a 5.

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 the tool should be used when the agent has a specific LCSC code or MPN, but it does not provide explicit 'when not to use' guidance or mention alternatives such as lib_search_components for search-based lookup. The usage context is clear but limited.

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