pcb_get_board_statistics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral load. It does establish scope (only the 'active' board) and implies a non-mutating read via 'Get', but does not say whether statistics are computed live or cached, whether a board must be open/focused, or what happens when no board is active.

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 opening two sentences are front-loaded and efficient, but the 'Returns:' block enumerates fourteen field names that are already declared in the output schema, which is redundant padding rather than new information.

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?

With zero parameters and an existing output schema, the basic burden is met: purpose, scope, and use case are stated. The notable gap is positioning against sibling aggregation tools (pcb_get_fab_stats, proj_get_stats, proj_get_board_info) and any note on data freshness, which an agent in this dense toolset needs in order to choose correctly.

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 disambiguate. The description correctly signals that no inputs are required by framing the call purely around the active board.

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 ('Get comprehensive statistics for the active PCB board') and enumerates what is measured. However, it never distinguishes itself from closely named siblings such as pcb_get_fab_stats, proj_get_stats, or get_board_info, so an agent cannot tell from the description which stats tool to pick.

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 line 'Useful for design reviews and progress tracking' implies a context of use, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative among the many stats/diagnostics siblings. Usage is only inferred.

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