Extract a library's style

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing what the tool actually reports: track/arc widths, pad shapes, text heights, layer usage, pin lengths, and stroke/fill/text colours. It also clarifies edge semantics such as 'a via counts as Multi-Layer,' which gives the agent useful behavioral expectations beyond the structured annotations.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence earns its place: the first states the action, the second details the type-specific output, and the third gives the intended use. There is no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a simple one-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the output will contain for both supported library types, states the use case, and the annotations cover the non-destructive safety profile. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 already fully documents the single parameter (`filepath`), so the baseline is 3. The description adds indirect meaning by tying the filepath to either .PcbLib or .SchLib behavior, but it does not materially expand on the parameter itself beyond what the schema states.

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 states a specific verb-resource pair: 'Extract style information from an existing Altium library file.' It then enumerates exactly what style information is extracted for PcbLib and SchLib files, which distinguishes it from the more generic read_pcblib/read_schlib siblings and makes the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 gives a clear use context: 'Use this to learn from existing libraries and create consistent new components.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the purpose and intended workflow are clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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