pcb_get_selected

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly implies a read-only operation by stating 'get', but it doesn't mention what happens if no selection exists, whether the tool respects layers, or if it returns the current state synchronously. The description is adequate but lacks depth.

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, succinct sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It could be enhanced by noting the return format or clarifying the scope of 'primitives' (e.g., tracks, vias, pads). The lack of annotations increases the burden, but the description partially meets it.

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 input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage. Since there are no parameters, the description does not need to add parameter semantics beyond the schema. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, indicating no improvement needed.

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 tool retrieves selected PCB primitives. It uses a specific verb 'get' and resource 'selected PCB primitives', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like pcb_create_track or pcb_get_all_components. However, it doesn't elaborate on what qualifies as a 'primitive', which could be ambiguous.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like pcb_get_all_components or pcb_get_board_outline have overlapping scopes, but the description does not differentiate usage contexts or specify prerequisites like having an active selection.

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