symbol_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true digital matching the non-destructive nature. The description adds that it returns pin positions, bounding box, and description, and indicates optional computation behavior without contradicting annotations.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence stating the tool's function. The input schema is well-organized with defaults, enums, and descriptions. No redundant or excessive information.

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 description covers the main purpose and optional behavior. However, it doesn't specify what 'absolute positions' means precisely or when it's useful, and doesn't mention alternatives or edge cases. Still, context is sufficient for typical use.

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?

Each parameter has a clear description: 'symbol' with examples, 'x'/'y' as placement coordinates, 'rotation' with enum values, 'format' with choices. Required parameter is specified. Meaning and purpose are unambiguous.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' with specific resources: 'symbol pin positions, bounding box, and description.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings like component_info and list_components by focusing on symbol-level geometric and descriptive data, with an optional absolute-position computation.

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 implies usage: call when you need symbol pin positions, bounding box, or description. It explains optional behavior for computing absolute positions when placement x/y/rotation are provided. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it versus alternatives like component_info, but the purpose is clear enough.

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