pcb_component

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It accurately describes the tool as read-only (get), which is consistent with its name. However, it does not mention error cases (e.g., component not found), authentication needs, or rate limits. Adequate but lacks detail.

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?

Single sentence, no filler, front-loads the key information: action (get), resource (component's PCB data), and specifics (placement, footprint, pads).

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 competently outlines the return data (placement, footprint, pads). It is sufficient for a simple retrieval tool and fits within the sibling context. Could mention that the result is per component.

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 fully (100% coverage). The tool description lists the returned data but adds no further parameter-level detail beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

Description clearly states the tool gets PCB placement, footprint id, and pads with nets, using the verb 'Get' and specifying the resource as component's PCB data. It distinguishes itself from siblings like pcb_components_near (which finds components near a point) and pcb_overview (board-level overview).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, when one should use this over pcb_components_near or pcb_overview is not clarified. No mention of prerequisites or best practices.

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