sch_inspect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output categories (pin coordinates, direction, boxes, and conditional labels/wires) and explains the conditional behavior based on the refs parameter. It does not mention side effects (implied read-only) or error handling, but for an inspection tool this is sufficient. It adds value beyond the schema by explaining the refs-dependent 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?

Three concise sentences: the first states the core output, the second adds the conditional behavior, and the third gives usage advice. Every sentence is purposeful, and the essential information is front-loaded. No redundant or filler content.

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 is complete for a read-only geometry inspection tool. It specifies what the agent will receive (geometry, labels/wires when applicable) and when to use it. It does not describe return format in detail, but without an output schema, the description provides enough context. It could mention read-only nature or error conditions, but these are minor gaps given the simplicity of the tool.

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?

The schema covers 67% of parameters (project and sheet have descriptions), but refs lacks a schema description. The description adds meaning to refs by stating that without it, labels and wires are also listed, clarifying the parameter's effect on output. This goes beyond the schema's coverage, so the description compensates for the gap.

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 tool's function: it provides exact geometry of symbols (pin tip coordinates, pin direction, body box, field boxes) and, conditionally, labels and wires. This distinguishes it from siblings like sch_lint (linting), sch_render (rendering), and sch_fix (fixing) by focusing on geometry inspection.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Use before drawing wires so they land on pin tips.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is clear enough that the agent can infer it is for pre-wiring geometry checks. No misleading guidance.

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