get_component

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses what the tool returns (properties, pins, net names) but does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, possible error conditions, or how missing references are handled. The behavior is largely inferable from 'Get', but not fully transparent.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It strikes the right balance of specificity and brevity for a simple get tool.

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 are covered. However, the description lacks parameter semantics and usage guidance, leaving minor gaps. For a one-parameter tool, this is adequate but not complete.

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 coverage is 0% and the description does not clarify the 'reference' parameter beyond its name. The agent must guess it refers to a component reference designator; the description provides no additional meaning that the schema's type string does not already give.

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 the action ('Get one component') and the specific contents (properties, pins, resolved net names), which distinguishes it from siblings like list_components (which returns multiple) and get_pin/get_net (which target separate resources).

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 tool vs. alternatives. It does not mention that list_components should be used for multiple components, or that get_pin/get_net are for individual pins/nets. The usage context is only implied.

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