kicad_status

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

The description mentions the action of checking and reporting, which is consistent with the annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive). However, it does not go beyond the annotations to disclose additional behavioral details like error handling or return format specifics, though the output schema likely covers that.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, stating the purpose in a single sentence without any unnecessary details. It efficiently conveys the tool's function.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, simple output), the description is complete. The output schema exists to define return details, so the description does not need to explain more. It fully covers the tool's purpose in context.

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?

There are no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty). The baseline score of 3 applies because there is no parameter information to add; the description does not need to elaborate on nonexistent arguments.

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 clearly states the action ('Check the connection') and the specific resource ('KiCad') along with the expected result ('report the editor version'). It is distinct from sibling tools like list_nets or get_board_info, which focus on board data rather than connectivity and version.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as using it as a preliminary health check before other operations. The description only states what it does without indicating typical usage context or conditions.

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