components_near

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses a non-obvious trait — results span both the same and opposite board side — but says nothing about whether results are capped/ordered, permission requirements, or that the operation is a read-only query (only implied by the phrasing).

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 no filler, and the key scoping detail (both sides) is stated immediately. It is a sentence fragment without a leading verb, which costs a little immediate readability but wastes nothing.

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 needn't be explained, and the core spatial semantics are covered. However, with zero annotation coverage and zero schema descriptions across three parameters, gaps remain around the unexplained 'project' argument and result-set behavior (limits, ordering, empty results).

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain radius_mm as a distance from the given component and designator as the reference component, but the third parameter (project) is never mentioned and no units/default/format hints are given for the others.

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 names the specific resource (PCB components) and the precise retrieval criterion (centers within radius_mm of a given component), which is far more informative than the tool name alone. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like search_components or pcb_placement, but the spatial-proximity semantics are unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for 'what is next to component X', but the description never says when to prefer it over search_components or get_component, nor any exclusions. No prerequisites or context requirements are stated.

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