Get a component

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds useful behavioral detail: it returns complete component data, works for both footprint and symbol libraries, and avoids full-library filtering. This goes beyond the structured hints without contradicting them.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, the return behavior is stated, and the file-type support is included efficiently. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 2-parameter read-only tool, the description is sufficiently complete: it defines the target, the input context, and the output scope. The lack of an output schema is partially mitigated by saying it returns 'full component data', though exact return structure and error behavior are not detailed.

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 100%, so filepath and component_name are already well documented in the schema. The description does not add much parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, but it reinforces the exact-name expectation and the supported library file types.

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 ('Get') and resource ('single component by name'), clearly distinguishing this from broader library-reading tools. It also states what is returned ('full component data') and the supported file types, so an agent knows exactly what the tool does.

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 conveys a clear usage context: retrieve one known component by name without reading and filtering the entire library. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like list_components or read_pcblib/read_schlib, but the 'without needing to read and filter the entire library' phrasing effectively signals when this tool is preferable.

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