List Schematic Wires

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing safety. The description adds value by specifying that it returns all wires with start/end coordinates, which goes beyond annotations and clarifies the result scope and content.

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 sentence with the verb front-loaded, no irrelevant details, and perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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 tool's simplicity, full annotation coverage, a well-described single parameter, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It states the resource, scope, and returned coordinates, leaving no significant gaps for a read-only list operation.

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 only parameter, schematicPath, has 100% schema coverage with the clear description 'Path to the .kicad_sch file'. The tool description does not add further detail about the parameter, 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 uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'wires in the schematic' and adds the scope 'all wires' plus the returned data 'start/end coordinates'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_schematic_components and list_schematic_nets, and even from get_wire_connections.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_wire_connections or find_orphaned_wires. The purpose is implied, but no exclusionary or alternative guidance is provided, which is a typical missing piece for list-style tools.

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