list_components

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not reveal whether the operation is read-only, what data it returns, or any side effects or requirements. 'List and search' implies a read operation, but that is not explicit, and there is no mention of pagination, filtering semantics, or output structure.

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 sentence with no fluff, but it is under-specified—it lacks necessary details about parameters and usage. It is concise in form but not in substance, warranting a middle score rather than a higher one.

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 four parameters, no annotations, and the presence of many sibling tools, the description is too thin to be complete. It does not explain the tool's role in the broader workflow, the meaning of 'grouped schematic component parts', or how the optional parameters affect results. While the output schema exists, the description still fails to provide critical context for correct use.

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 0%, and the description provides no additional meaning for the four parameters (path, limit, query, offset). 'List and search' is the only functional hint, but it does not explain what each parameter controls, how query syntax works, or how path/offset/limit interact. This is a significant gap for an effective agent invocation.

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 lists and searches PCB components or grouped schematic component parts, using specific verbs ('list', 'search') and a clear resource (components). It distinguishes from component-specific tools like get_component but does not explicitly contrast with similar listing tools, so it falls 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (e.g., get_component, scan_component_libraries). The description only states what it does, not the context or alternatives, leaving the agent without direction.

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