inspect_component

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Inspect' strongly implies a read-only, non-mutating operation, and the description names what state is examined. However, it does not disclose behavior for invalid references, error handling, or whether the 'current net membership' reflects uncommitted design changes.

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?

A single, dense sentence with no filler. The main action and object are front-loaded, and the scope details are packed efficiently.

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 is simple (one required parameter) and has an output schema, which reduces the burden on the description. Still, the unclear meaning of 'reference' and the absence of any usage guidance leave enough ambiguity that an agent may hesitate about when to invoke it and how to populate its only parameter.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only identifies the resource type and never defines what 'reference' means (designator, ID, path?), its expected format, or how it relates to existing components. It adds little beyond the parameter name itself.

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 uses a specific verb ('Inspect') with a clear resource ('a Circuit IR component') and defines the scope precisely: 'real pins and current net membership'. This clearly distinguishes it from mutation/creation siblings like component_add and connect_pins.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as find_symbol or design_preview. The read/inspect intent is implied by the verb, but no scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions are stated.

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