Read a SchLib

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

Annotations already establish read-only and non-destructive behavior, and the description goes well beyond that. It discloses schematic-unit coordinates, the fidelity-carrier semantics of fields like unique_id and raw_params, the JSON-shape compatibility with related tools, and the omission of empty lists/null optional fields. These are substantive behavioral details an agent needs to interpret results correctly.

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 dense but well organized: it opens with the core action and return contents, then adds coordinate units, fidelity-carrier behavior, JSON-shape conventions, and filtering guidance. Every sentence conveys necessary information without fluff or repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so thoroughly: symbols, primitives, parameters, footprint links, coordinate units, fidelity fields, omission semantics, and pagination. The annotation-provided read-only safety profile completes the context for a file-reading tool.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter already described in the input schema. The description mostly reinforces the schema, adding high-level guidance like 'use component_name to fetch specific symbols' and pagination hints, but it does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Read an Altium .SchLib file and return its contents.' It enumerates the exact symbol primitives, parameters, and footprint links returned, making the tool's scope unmistakable. The file-type distinction also separates it from read_pcblib and other library readers.

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 provides clear operational context: use component_name for specific symbols, use limit/offset for pagination, and pass fidelity fields back to write_schlib or update_component for byte-identical rewrites. It does not explicitly contrast this tool with sibling tools like get_component, so it stops short of a full when-to-use vs alternative statement.

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