Reload Board

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds specific context by stating it 'discards stale in-memory board state', clarifying that the destruction applies to in-memory state, not the on-disk file. It also indicates the reload source ('from disk') and scope ('current or specified'), which is useful beyond the raw annotation.

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 states the action, target, and effect without any filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's behavior. No redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 optional parameter (already fully described in schema) and an existing output schema, the description is complete. It covers the action (reload), the object (.kicad_pcb), the source (from disk), and the consequence (discard stale state). No important context is missing for safe and correct invocation.

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 schema coverage is 100% with the boardPath parameter already described as 'Optional .kicad_pcb path; defaults to current board'. The description's phrase 'current or specified' merely restates the schema. No additional parameter semantics are added beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline 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 a specific verb ('Reload') with a clear resource ('.kicad_pcb from disk') and a clarifying behavioral effect ('discarding stale in-memory board state'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like open_board (initial open) and save_board (writing to disk) by emphasizing reloading from disk and discarding in-memory state.

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 clearly implies when to use it: when you want to refresh the board state from disk and discard stale in-memory data. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context ('current or specified .kicad_pcb') and the destructive-effect wording provide clear contextual guidance. Sibling tool names (open_board, discard_or_reload) further help, though the description doesn't reference them.

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