Launch Kicad Ui

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

Annotations already flag the operation as destructive and non-read-only, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It does not mention process spawning, effect on already-running instances, or potential side effects, leaving the agent without extra insight.

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, front-loaded sentence that is functional and free of filler. Every word earns its place.

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 launcher with complete parameter schemas and an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It could be improved by noting behavior when KiCAD is already running or handling of nonexistent project paths, but these are minor gaps.

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 input schema fully describes both parameters (autoLaunch and projectPath) with 100% coverage. The description adds no new meaning beyond paraphrasing projectPath, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Launch KiCAD UI') and the optional project file scope, clearly distinguishing this from project/board-opening tools like open_project or open_board. It is direct and unambiguous.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as check_kicad_ui, open_project, or open_board. The description implies launching the UI but does not specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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