List PCB components

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior by stating that a mismatched or missing document focus yields not_available rather than an empty list, preventing an agent from misreading an error as 'board has no components'. It stops short of describing pagination or result 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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the listing scope front-loaded and the failure-mode caveat placed second. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is rightly omitted, and the focus/precondition requirement is covered. The only shortfall is the unaddressed pagination contract (default page size of 100, cap of 200), which matters for boards with many components.

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 only 33% — only projectId is documented in the schema. The description reinforces the projectId requirement ('exact active project UUID') but says nothing about limit (default 100, max 200) or offset, leaving the two pagination parameters undocumented in both places.

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 and resource ('List native PCB components') and enumerates the returned fields (designators, footprints, positions), which distinguishes it from sibling PCB primitives like easyeda_pcb_fills, easyeda_pcb_tracks and easyeda_pcb_vias, though those siblings are never named explicitly.

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?

Gives a clear precondition set: an exact active project UUID and a focused PCB document. It does not name alternatives (e.g. easyeda_schematic_components for schematic side, or easyeda_pcb_production_review for aggregated review), so no exclusions are offered — the classic 'clear context, no exclusions' case.

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