Search components

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description only needs to add behavioral context beyond that. It discloses what is returned ('matching component names with their source library paths'), which is useful, but it does not describe edge behaviors like empty-match results, case sensitivity, invalid-pattern handling, or search scope limits.

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 zero waste: the first states the action and method, the second states the return value, the third states supported file types. The core purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only search tool with 3 params (2 required, 1 enum) and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly complete. It even compensates for the missing output schema by stating the return content ('matching component names with their source library paths'). Minor gaps remain only around empty-result behavior and match semantics, which are low-stakes for a non-destructive search.

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 the schema already documents pattern, filepaths, and pattern_type. The description adds marginal reinforcement by tying 'regex or glob patterns' to the pattern_type enum and file extensions to the filepaths parameter, but it does not add new semantic detail beyond what the schema already 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Search for components across multiple Altium libraries using regex or glob patterns,' which clearly distinguishes this from siblings like list_components (enumerate all), get_component (fetch one known component), and read_pcblib/read_schlib (read whole files). It also clarifies scope by naming both supported file types, '.PcbLib' and '.SchLib,' so an agent knows exactly what this tool covers.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you need to find components by pattern across multiple libraries rather than reading a whole library or fetching a known component. It names the search methods ('regex or glob patterns') and the return value, giving clear context, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use conditions relative to siblings like list_components or component_exists.

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