Open Board

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

Annotations already set destructiveHint=true, but the description adds context that opening a file will 'refresh the MCP in-memory board state,' indicating a replacement of current state. This goes beyond the raw annotation by specifying the nature of the mutation, though it does not elaborate on side effects like unsaved changes or error scenarios.

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 that conveys both the action and its consequence. Every clause adds value, with no redundant or filler content.

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 tool with one parameter, an output schema, and annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and effect. It does not explain what happens if the file is invalid or if there are unsaved changes, but these are beyond the core need for a straightforward open operation. The presence of an output schema also reduces the need to describe return values.

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% and the single parameter 'boardPath' is already well-described as 'Path to the .kicad_pcb file to open.' The tool description adds no additional parameter detail, so with complete schema coverage, a baseline score 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 verb ('Open') and resource ('.kicad_pcb board file'), clearly distinguishing it from project-level tools like open_project. It also mentions the specific effect of refreshing the MCP in-memory board state, which adds precision beyond just naming the operation.

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 when to use the tool—when you need to open a specific board file—but it does not explicitly discuss alternatives or when not to use it. There is no direct comparison to sibling tools like reload_board or open_project, so the usage guidance is only implied, not explicit.

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