get_component

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does state what is returned (component, parts/pads, connected nets), but does not explicitly say it is a non-mutating read operation or describe any side effects. Since the tool name and verb imply read-only behavior, this is adequate but not richly transparent.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and specifics. Every word adds value with no repetition or filler.

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?

Given an output schema exists, return-value details are handled externally. However, the description omits any mention of the 'path' parameter or prerequisites (e.g., document context), which is important for a tool with two parameters. It is a complete summary for the core function but not fully comprehensive for invocation context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'refdes' implicitly as the reference designator, but the optional 'path' parameter is completely unexplained. With two parameters and 0% schema descriptions, only one parameter's purpose is partially conveyed, leaving the other undocumented.

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 clearly states the tool gets a single component by reference designator, including its parts/pads and connected nets. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_components (plural) and get_object (generic). The verb 'Get' and specific resource scope are unambiguous.

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 phrase 'by reference designator' implies it should be used when targeting a specific component, and siblings like list_components provide the alternative for multiple components. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any mention of alternatives.

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