list_components

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: output units (mm), the fields returned, and the glob/substring filter semantics with concrete examples.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The core purpose and output fields are front-loaded, followed by a compact and useful filter explanation with examples.

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 an 8-parameter list tool with 0% schema description coverage, the description covers the main filters and output fields but leaves pagination (limit/offset) and dnp/path semantics unaddressed. The output schema helps, but the description alone is not fully complete.

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 does clarify ref, value, footprint, and side filters, but omits semantics for dnp, path, limit, and offset, leaving a notable gap for 8 parameters.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('footprints on the board') and specifies the returned fields (position, rotation, side). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_component or list_nets.

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 explains filter syntax but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_component, select_components, or items_in_region. It lacks when/when-not conditions or exclusions.

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