Get Board Info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds that it returns dimensions, layer count, and DRC status, which is useful behavioral context, but doesn't elaborate on what 'DRC status' means (e.g., last run vs. live violations).

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, front-loaded sentence with a clear verb and object. Every word adds value, and the parenthetical provides helpful examples without bloat.

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 no parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description is adequately complete for a simple read-only getter. It names the main data categories. A minor gap is that 'DRC status' could be interpreted as a live check vs. last run, but this is not critical.

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 the empty schema fully covers the input. The description correctly omits parameter details. Baseline 4 is appropriate as there is no need for additional semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('general information about the current PCB board'), and includes concrete examples (dimensions, layer count, DRC status). This clearly distinguishes it from more specific sibling tools like get_board_origin, get_layer_list, or get_drc_violations.

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 implies useful for a general board overview but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over more specialized getters or mention alternatives. No exclusions or 'use X instead' guidance is provided.

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