sch_generate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by stating the generated schematic passes basic ERC and is ready for human review and PCB layout, but it does not disclose side effects such as overwriting an existing .kicad_sch or what the tool returns after generation.

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?

Two compact sentences with the core action front-loaded. Every clause contributes: file type, input format, component identifiers, net representation, ERC quality, and intended downstream use.

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?

The description covers purpose and input quality well, but since there is no output schema and no annotations, the agent is left without information about return values and overwrite behavior. It is adequate for a simple generation tool but has clear gaps around invocation side effects.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining what the netlist_spec must contain—components with LCSC C-numbers and footprints, and named nets connecting pins—whereas the schema only says 'Components + nets. See plugin docs for the schema.'

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: generate a .kicad_sch from a declarative netlist spec. It also specifies the input content (components with LCSC C-numbers and footprints, named nets), which distinguishes it from downstream siblings like pcb_generate and sch_run_erc.

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 this tool is used when a netlist spec exists and the goal is a KiCad schematic for review and PCB layout. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer sch_generate over alternatives like pcb_generate or sch_run_erc, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites.

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