pcb_select_component

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'select' without explaining what happens after selecting (e.g., visual highlight, deselecting other components, or any returned confirmation). This lack of behavioral detail makes it hard for an agent to anticipate 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 a single, concise sentence without any fluff. It is front-loaded and does not waste words. However, it is too minimal to convey any auxiliary information, so it is not as structured as one might expect for a useful tool description.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description might be marginally acceptable. However, it does not mention any requirements (e.g., component must exist) or provide any detail on what the selection implies. It is complete in the sense of naming the action, but lacks the completeness expected for a full understanding.

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 schema coverage is 100% (the single parameter 'designator' is described as 'element reference designator' in Chinese). The description does not add any extra meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema provides. Since the schema already documents the parameter, the baseline is 3.

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: '在编辑器中选中元件' which means 'select the component in the editor'. It uses a specific verb (select) and a specific resource (component), distinguishing it from sibling tools like pcb_move_component or pcb_get_state. The purpose is 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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of whether it is a prerequisite for other operations (e.g., pcb_move_component), or if it is used for visual selection or context. No exclusions or conditions are given.

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