load_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses validation of the manifest, subdirectory assurance, setting the active session workspace, and returning a manifest. Minor ambiguity remains around whether missing directories are created or merely checked.

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: purpose comes first, followed by behavioral details and return value. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter, low-complexity tool, the description covers input acceptance, validation behavior, workspace effects, and the return value without needing an output schema. It could add error-handling details, but nothing essential is missing.

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 the schema already fully documents project_path including the .kicad_pro file OR directory alternative. The tool description merely paraphrases the schema, adding no new parameter-level meaning.

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 and resource: 'Load an existing KiCad project' via a .kicad_pro file or directory. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_project and detect_kicad.

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 phrase 'existing KiCad project' conveys when this tool applies rather than creating a new project. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is clear enough for an agent to select it over create_project.

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