Component designators

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds beyond annotations by explaining the return format (String array parsed in Node), the prerequisite for an active PCB, and the lighter-response nature compared to full component data. This is useful context but not exhaustive (e.g., no pagination or error behavior).

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 well-structured with labeled sections (Purpose, When to use, Parameters, Returns, Prerequisites, Notes). Each sentence delivers distinct value without redundancy, and the most critical info is front-loaded. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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 simple read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage guidance, return format, prerequisites, and implementation details. There are no significant gaps that would hinder an agent's correct invocation.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema correctly reflects that. The description explicitly notes 'Parameters: None,' which is redundant with the schema but harmless. With no parameters, the description's job is minimal, and it fulfills the baseline for a 0-param tool.

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's purpose: returning all component reference designators on the active PCB. It uses a specific verb-resource combination and distinguishes itself from siblings like get_component_pins by positioning it as a quick inventory.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('Quick inventory before get_component_pins') and contrasts with the heavier alternative ('Same underlying command... but lighter response'). Also mentions prerequisite of an active/focused PCB, providing clear usage context.

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