easyeda_list_components

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: results are paginated, the read is confined to the currently active document (no auto page switching), and schematic output may contain flags/ports in addition to components.

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?

One compact sentence with the action front-loaded, followed by the resource and then the content caveat. No filler or redundancy.

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?

With an output schema and rich annotations present, the description needs only to frame scope and behavior, which it does: paged reads of the active document's components with schematic extras noted. Only a brief nod to the sibling tools' division of labour is missing.

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 kind, limit, offset, session and document_uuid are all documented in the schema itself. The description only restates the pagination notion and the document type split; it adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb+resource: paged reading of component IDs, designators and coordinates from the active schematic/PCB. It scopes the resource clearly (schematic/PCB) and even notes the schematic-specific extras (flags/ports). It does not explicitly contrast with the nearest sibling (easyeda_read_netlist), 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?

Usage is implied by 'active schematic/PCB' and the schema's instruction to call inspect_project first, but the description never states when to choose this tool over read_netlist, inspect_project, or check_drc. No explicit when/when-not guidance is present.

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