list_components

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

With no annotations, the description is the only safety/behavior source, and it only confirms a read-style listing operation with filters. It omits the meaningful default behavior of follow_hierarchy (true), which affects whether sub-schematic components are included, and discloses no other behavioral traits.

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 front-loaded sentence conveys the action, resource, and main filtering options without wasted words. Every element earns its place.

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?

The definition is minimally viable for selecting and calling the tool, and an output schema exists to cover return structure. However, the critical follow_hierarchy semantic is absent, and with no annotations the description should give more context about scoping the listing.

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 compensate. It clarifies 'prefix' as a reference-prefix filter and implies 'value_contains' as a value filter, but it says nothing about follow_hierarchy, leaving a required-in-practice parameter meaning unexplained.

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 a specific verb ('List'), names the resource ('components in a schematic'), and advertises optional filters. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_nets and list_footprints, which operate on different resources.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and it names no sibling tools or exclusions. Usage must be inferred from the obvious 'list components' purpose.

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