get_board_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds meaningful context by specifying the prerequisite (KiCAD running with a board open in the PCB editor) and detailing exactly what information is returned, which goes beyond the bare annotation.

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 front-loaded with the primary action ('Returns...') and uses four concise sentences, each adding value: the return statement, the detailed list of returned data, the timing guidance, and the environmental prerequisite. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 the presence of an output schema and zero parameters, the description needs only to cover purpose, usage timing, and prerequisites—all of which are present. It fully equips an agent to understand what the tool does, when to call it, and what is needed for successful 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. With an empty schema and no parameters, the description does not need to elaborate on input semantics; the baseline of 4 for zero parameters applies.

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 explicitly states the tool 'Returns high-level information about the currently open PCB board in KiCAD' with a specific verb and resource. It lists concrete data fields (filename, dimensions, layer count, counts of footprints/tracks/vias/zones/nets), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings that focus on individual board elements.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: 'This is typically the first tool to call when starting work on a board.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the positioning as the initial overview step implicitly differentiates it from more specific tools like list_footprints or list_tracks.

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