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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses critical behavior: text files return a 128 KiB UTF-8 chunk requiring nextOffset pagination, binary files return a download URL rather than bytes, and the agent must not claim to have read binary contents. This is valuable operational context not implied by the schema or annotations.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: use case, return behavior for text and binary, path constraint, and sibling routing. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully covers return semantics, pagination, binary handling, and usage boundaries. It also includes guidance about using read_schematic for circuit understanding, making the tool contextually complete for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics by tying path to list_board_files, emphasizing that paths must not be guessed, and explaining that offset accepts the returned nextOffset for continuation.

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 ('read'), a precise resource ('raw contents of a specific file in a public board'), and constrained inputs ('exact path from list_board_files'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly excluding raw .kicad_sch parsing in favor of read_schematic.

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?

It explicitly says when to use the tool: when the user wants raw file contents by an exact path. It gives clear exclusions ('Do not guess paths') and directs the agent to read_schematic for understanding circuit wiring, providing a concrete alternative.

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