sch_read_circuit

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

No annotations exist, so description carries transparency burden. Describes it as a read operation without side effects, but omits behaviors like what happens if no schematic is open, permissions, or rate limits. Adequate but not thorough.

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?

Two crisp sentences front-loaded with purpose and output format. No wasted words; efficiently communicates core intent.

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 no output schema, the description only vaguely outlines return content ('components + pins + resolved net per pin'). Lacks detail on structure, page handling, or how it relates to sibling tools like sch_assemble_circuit or sch_get_netlist. Incomplete for effective use.

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?

Single parameter 'allSchematicPages' has 0% schema description coverage and is not explained in the tool description. The agent has no clue what this boolean does, severely hindering correct usage.

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?

Clearly states verb 'Read,' resource 'current schematic,' and output 'structured circuit (components + pins + resolved net per pin).' Calls it 'Best high-level read,' hinting at its role among siblings, though not fully differentiating all.

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?

Provides minimal guidance ('Best high-level read') suggesting a preferred choice for high-level reads, but lacks explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative comparisons among the many sch_ tools.

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