list_components

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a read-only listing action but does not mention pagination, sorting, result limits, error behavior, or the structure of the returned list. The description stops at the surface action without revealing any additional behavioral traits an agent would need to anticipate.

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, lean sentence. It leads with the core action and resource, then appends the filtering options. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition. Excellent conciseness.

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 tool is simple (one optional parameter) and an output schema exists (so return structure is defined elsewhere). The description covers the primary function and filter names, but it omits how the query string should be formatted and what happens when the query is empty (does it return all components?). This leaves ambiguity for an agent trying to construct a valid call, so the description is not fully complete despite the existing output schema.

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 input schema has a single parameter 'query' with zero description (0% coverage). The description partially compensates by stating that filtering can be done by reference, value, or library id, which gives meaning to the query parameter. However, it does not explain the query syntax (e.g., how to combine filters, exact vs. substring match) or the default behavior when query is empty. It adds some semantic value but not enough to fully bridge the schema 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List schematic components', and adds optional filter dimensions (reference, value, library id). It clearly distinguishes this list operation from siblings like get_component (which retrieves a single component) or list_nets (which lists nets). The purpose is unambiguous and easy to act on.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description never mentions 'use this to list all components' or 'use get_component for a single component'. Agents are left to infer usage from the name and sibling context, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.

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