schematic_inspect_region

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Read components and wires that touch a rectangular schematic region', leaving out critical behavioral details such as whether 'touch' means intersect or fully contain, coordinate system or units, return format, or performance implications for large regions.

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 short sentence, which is concise. However, it is too sparse to cover the tool's semantics. Conciseness is not synonymous with brevity when critical information is missing.

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 7 parameters (5 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It fails to specify what the output looks like, how coordinates are interpreted, or the meaning of 'touch'. Essential context is missing for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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%, so the description must explain parameters. It mentions only 'rectangular schematic region' but does not define left, top, right, bottom (units, coordinate system) nor explain the boolean flags includeWires and includeComponents. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds no extra value.

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 uses the specific verb 'Read' and resource 'components and wires touching a rectangular schematic region'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools, which are mostly creation/deletion operations (e.g., schematic_create_wires, schematic_delete_primitives) or search (component_search). The tool's read-only intent is immediately clear.

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 implies the tool is for inspecting a region, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., component_search for non-region searches). There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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