component

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It describes a read operation (get details of a component) and hints at interaction with the 'net' tool. However, it does not disclose any potential side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. The description is adequate but not thorough.

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 sentence that front-loads the main purpose and includes a usage hint. Every part earns its place; no wasted words.

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?

Given 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is somewhat incomplete. It lists what is described but does not detail the return structure or clarify the 'fields' and 'pin->net map' format. Additional context would improve completeness.

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% and the description does not explain the parameters. 'ref' is implied as the component reference but not explicitly described, and 'project' is not mentioned at all. The description should define these parameters to add value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states what the tool does: 'Describe one component' and enumerates the included information (value, footprint, datasheet, fields, pin->net map). It is specific about the resource and action, distinguishing it from siblings like 'net' and 'find' by hinting at how to use them together.

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 provides a usage hint ('Use net() on a pin's net to expand connectivity') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The context of sibling tools helps, but the description itself lacks clear guidelines.

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