List Library Symbols

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

Annotations already indicate this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds the behavioral detail of global vs. project-scope resolution, which is useful context beyond annotations. However, it does not describe return structure, pagination, or error behavior, and with annotations covering safety, a mid-range score is appropriate.

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, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the main purpose and packs in the scope nuance without waste. 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?

This is a simple list operation with an output schema present, full parameter documentation, and strong annotations (read-only, idempotent). The description covers the key decision point (which library and how scope is resolved). There is no need for more detail; it is complete for its complexity.

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 reinforces the purpose of projectPath ('when projectPath is supplied or a project has been opened') and hints at library selection, but it does not add substantial meaning beyond the detailed schema parameter descriptions. It is adequate but not exceptional.

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 the specific verb 'List' with a clear resource: 'symbols in a specific KiCAD symbol library.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_libraries, list_symbol_libraries, and get_symbol_info by focusing on the contents of a single library. It also clarifies the scope (global or project-scope), removing any ambiguity.

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 conveys when to use the tool: when all symbols in a particular library are needed, with nuance about project-scope resolution via projectPath or an opened project. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling context makes the intended use clear. This is more than merely implied usage, hence a 4.

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