List parts

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

The readOnlyHint annotation establishes that this is a safe, non-mutating operation, and the description is consistent with it. Beyond that annotation, it discloses the returned metadata, the breadboard-hole units and angle-0 reference for pin offsets, and filtering behavior, though it says nothing about result limits or unfiltered-query behavior.

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?

Two compact sentences front-load the purpose and returned information, then immediately explain filtering. The parenthetical units and examples add useful precision without introducing unnecessary wording.

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 simple one-parameter read-only lookup, the definition covers the resource, important result contents, measurement conventions, and basic filtering despite having no output schema. Minor omissions remain around what happens when query is omitted or empty and whether results are capped or paginated.

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?

Although the schema leaves query completely undocumented, the description explains that it accepts a filter word and provides three useful example terms. For the tool's only parameter, this supplies enough practical meaning to compensate for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 pairs a specific verb and resource—listing parts usable in a circuit spec—with concrete output details such as pin names, offsets, and settable properties. This suggests a parts catalog rather than inspection of an existing circuit, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as tinkercad_get_circuit.

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 circuit-spec wording provides a clear discovery-before-build context, and the second sentence explains how to narrow the catalog with terms such as 'led', 'motor', or 'sensor'. It would be stronger if it explicitly directed agents to use it before tinkercad_build_circuit or tinkercad_set_part, rather than leaving that routing implicit.

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