List Symbol Libraries

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds useful context about global vs project scope and the condition for including project libraries. It doesn't contradict annotations and offers extra detail beyond them, though 'any related file' is somewhat vague.

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, front-loaded with the verb and object, and contains no redundant filler. It is appropriately concise, though the phrase 'any related file' introduces slight ambiguity.

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 list tool with one optional parameter and an existing output schema, the description covers scope and conditional behavior well. Annotations handle safety, so the description is sufficiently complete.

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 already documents the single parameter projectPath with a descriptive explanation, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds little beyond the schema; mentioning 'any related file' is broader but less precise than the schema's file type list.

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 identifies the tool as listing KiCAD symbol libraries, with a specific scope (global sym-lib-table plus project sym-lib-table when relevant). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on library collections rather than symbols within a library, but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied: you list symbol libraries when you need the available libraries, and project scope is included if a project is opened or projectPath is given. No explicit when-not or comparison to alternatives is provided.

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