sch_add_bus

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

The description adds the behavioral detail of default 2.54 mm grid snapping, which is beyond the annotations. However, it does not address the destructiveHint annotation, nor explain any side effects or safety considerations. With annotations present, this is acceptable but not rich.

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 filler. It earns a top score for efficiency.

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?

For a simple drawing tool with an output schema and straightforward parameters, the description is mostly sufficient. However, it lacks usage guidance and does not explain the destructiveHint context or what the result will look like. Complete enough for the task but with clear gaps.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only mentions grid snapping, which relates to snap_to_grid, but gives no detail on the coordinate parameters. The parameter names (x1_mm, y1_mm, etc.) are self-explanatory, but the description adds marginal value 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?

The description states a clear verb ('Add') and resource ('schematic bus'), and adds useful detail about grid snapping. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like sch_add_wire or sch_add_bus_wire_entry, so it earns a 4 rather than 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives, no prerequisites, no exclusions, and no context about the bus vs. wire. It is purely a single-sentence definition.

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