logisim_components

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return shape for both modes: the list returns port names, and the detail view returns ports (name, direction, width, offset) plus attributes with defaults and allowed values. This is substantial disclosure, though it does not explicitly confirm the operation is read-only/non-destructive.

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 tightly packed sentence with the primary action front-loaded and the 'type' variant cleanly separated by a semicolon. 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey the return values itself, and it does so for both modes. The gap is the 'attrs' parameter, whose purpose on a listing/introspection tool is never clarified, leaving a small ambiguity about whether it filters the list or applies to a fetched type.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema for 'type' by explaining it switches to a detailed single-type view (schema only says it is an alias or Logisim name). It adds no information about 'attrs', which remains unexplained for a listing tool, keeping it short of 5.

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 / show) and resource (the component types logisim_build understands), and explicitly ties itself to the sibling logisim_build. It also delineates two distinct modes of operation, so an agent knows exactly what this tool does and how it relates to the build tool.

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 clearly explains the two usage branches: call with no argument to get the full list, or pass 'type' to drill into one component. The linkage to logisim_build implies this is the discovery step before building, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over a sibling or any prerequisites/exclusions.

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