list_schematic_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' implies a non-mutating read, and 'in the open schematic' hints at a required open-document precondition, but nothing is said about ordering, filtering, or scope limits. Adequate for a trivial zero-parameter reader, but not rich.

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 with zero filler; every word (verb, object type, document scope) earns its place and nothing redundant is included.

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 values need not be described, and with no parameters the description only needs to convey scope and intent, which it does. The one missing element is an explicit pointer to the board counterpart list_text and any preconditions for 'open schematic'.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-parameter tool applies. No parameter-related gaps exist.

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 ('List'), a specific resource ('free text objects') and a scope ('in the open schematic'), which implicitly separates it from the board-level sibling list_text. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling or contrasting the two, but an agent can tell which document type it targets.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (e.g. a schematic must be open/active), and no routing to alternatives such as list_text for board text or list_labels for schematic labels. The agent must infer applicability entirely from the name.

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