Fritzing Part Connectors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a safe read operation and the description states the return is JSON with connector fields, but it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, permissions, or side effects.

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 two short sentences that are front-loaded with the tool's function. The second sentence earns its place by clarifying how connector ids are used in wiring, and there is no wasted text.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values in detail. For a simple one-parameter read tool, it sufficiently covers what is listed and why connector ids matter, though it could add a brief note on when to call it.

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%, and the sole parameter module_id is already well documented in the schema as coming from fritzing_search_parts. The description adds no additional syntax or meaning for the parameter itself, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (List) and resource (a part's connector ids, names, and types), making the tool's operation immediately clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as fritzing_wire or fritzing_search_parts, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 note that connector ids are what wire endpoints reference implies the tool is useful before wiring, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternatives. Usage is inferable but not directly stated.

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