Repair Flat Symbols

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

Description contradicts annotations: annotation idempotentHint=false, while description claims 'Idempotent'. Despite useful info about dry-run and destructive edits, the direct contradiction forces a score of 1 per rubric.

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?

Well-structured into three cohesive paragraphs: the problem, the mechanism, and operational notes. Every sentence earns its place, providing necessary context without fluff.

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?

Covers the problem, solution, supported formats, idempotency caveat, dry-run default, destructive nature, and version control advice. An output schema exists, so no need to describe return values. Very complete aside from the idempotency flag mismatch.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter already has a meaningful description. The description adds context about file types and dry-run behavior, but these are also present in the schema descriptions, so no additional semantics are provided. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Clearly states the tool repairs 'flat' vendor symbols, explaining the exact problem (missing _1_1 sub-unit) and the solution (wrapping children in sub-unit). It distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing specific crashing tools and file types.

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?

Provides explicit when to use: when kicad-skip parser crashes on schematics containing such symbols. Lists supported file types (.kicad_sym and .kicad_sch) and mentions dry-run default. Does not explicitly state when not to use or alternatives, but the context is strong enough.

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