Inspect open circuit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it is a read of the full editor state, should be called after every build step, and its component ids are dependencies for later mutation tools. No contradiction with 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, gives the one critical usage instruction, then lists parameters and returns. Every sentence earns its place, and nothing is redundant or padded.

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 read-only introspection tool with rich annotations and fully documented parameters, the description covers what it returns at a useful level and explains why the return values matter. It does not detail the exact return schema, but the first sentence enumerates the main state categories, which is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect.

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 100%, and the description's Args section largely repeats the schema's parameter documentation. It adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides for include_code, include_serial, include_pins, or response_format. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the full parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and names the exact resource ('currently open Circuits editor') plus the covered contents: components, pins, wires, code, serial, and simulation flag. This is clear and distinct from sibling tools like list_components or get_code, even though it does not explicitly name them.

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: 'Call this after every build step so later tools use real component ids.' It also explains why the results matter by stating component ids are required by move/delete/wire tools. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like list_components, but the guidance is concrete enough for correct selection.

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