list_circuit_blocks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that — the result set is fixed and finite (exactly 10) and each entry is pre-validated — but says nothing about the item shape or ordering.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the fixed-size and pre-validated qualifiers are packed in without 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?

For a trivial read-only discovery tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. The main omission is what a CircuitBlock entry contains, which would help an agent chain this into synthesize_circuit, but that gap is minor at this complexity level.

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 takes zero parameters and the description introduces no invented arguments, so there is nothing to mis-document. Baseline of 4 applies for a no-parameter 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?

States a specific verb (List) plus resource (CircuitBlocks) and qualifies scope with 'all 10 pre-validated' in the hardware DSL catalog, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not, however, distinguish itself from similarly named discovery siblings like list_supported_chips or search_lcsc_parts.

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 only implied: as a parameterless catalog listing, it is naturally a discovery step before synthesis or validation. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over search_lcsc_parts or list_supported_chips, and no prerequisites are mentioned.

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