get_schematic_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; "Return" implies a non-mutating read, which is the key behavioral trait for a summary tool. It nonetheless omits whether the document must be open/active, what happens if none is open, and the shape of the result, leaving gaps for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence listing exactly what is counted, with no filler or redundancy.

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 the description need not enumerate return values, and for a zero-param summary tool the scope is adequately conveyed. The only remaining gap is the precondition that a schematic must be open, which is only weakly implied.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no input to clarify, and the description correctly adds nothing spurious about inputs.

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 ("Return counts") and resource (symbols, labels, text, lines, sheets in the open schematic). This is clearly distinct from sibling list_symbols/list_labels/list_schematic_text, which enumerate items rather than summarize counts, though the distinction is implied rather than stated.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like list_symbols or get_schematic_hierarchy, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The phrase "in the open schematic" implies scope but not usage conditions.

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