detect_kicad

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does so well. It discloses detection-only behavior, the failure branch returning an install_hint, platform-specific guidance, and explicitly states it never runs installs itself.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, return values are stated compactly, and the critical non-installing boundary is called out without extra prose.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description explains what the tool returns, the failure mode with install_hint, and the platform-specific nature of guidance. This is complete for a zero-parameter detection utility.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to add about parameter meaning; the schema already covers everything.

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?

States a specific verb ('Detect'), a clear resource ('local KiCad install'), and the key return values (version, path, minimum version check). No sibling tool overlaps with environment detection, so it is easily differentiated.

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 it is a prerequisite/environment check, but it never explicitly says when to run it relative to other tools or names alternatives. Since none of the siblings perform a similar function, the lack of explicit routing is a minor gap.

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