sch_get_all_components

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the output fields but does not mention that the tool returns components only from the current page by default (inferred from the allSchematicPages parameter), nor does it describe performance, ordering, or handling of empty results. Adequate but not thorough for a 'get all' tool.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action ('Get all schematic components'), then lists representative types and output fields with no redundant or filler content.

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?

The tool has 2 optional parameters and no output schema. The description provides basic context for what it does and what information is returned, but it lacks guidance on how it relates to sibling tools (e.g., when to use this vs. sch_search_component) and does not describe the expected output structure or edge cases.

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 descriptions cover both parameters (componentType enum and allSchematicPages boolean) at 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it retrieves all schematic components, lists specific types (parts, net flags, net ports) and includes output fields (positions, rotation, designators). This distinguishes it from siblings like sch_get_component_pins (which gets pins) and sch_search_component (which searches for a specific component).

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 is for retrieving all components on a page or across pages, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like sch_search_component for filtered search or sch_get_component_pins for pin details. No 'when-not-to-use' guidance is provided.

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