Find Wires Crossing Symbols

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds explanatory context about why such crossings are mistakes, which is useful but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like return format or edge cases. This is adequate given the annotation coverage.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler. The first sentence states the action, and the second provides context and rationale. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and remains concise.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with one parameter, a clear description, and a defined output schema (indicated by has output schema=true), the description fully covers the purpose and rationale. There is no need to repeat return value details since the output schema handles that.

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 sole parameter schematicPath is already fully described in the input schema ('Path to the .kicad_sch schematic file'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add any extra semantic detail beyond the schema, yielding a baseline score of 3.

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 specific verb ('Find') and resource ('wires that cross over component symbol bodies'), making it distinct from sibling tools like find_orphaned_wires or find_overlapping_elements. The specificity of 'crossing component symbol bodies' uniquely identifies the tool's scope.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when checking for unacceptable wire-over-symbol routing mistakes. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the rationale ('unacceptable in schematics') strongly implies the intended use case.

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