proj_get_board_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so unusually well: it explains that the tool resolves ANY open board regardless of active document, cites a measured failure case, and tells the agent which field (board_path) exposes the true source. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent cannot learn from schema or annotations.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the opening sentence, followed by the critical caveat and then the return fields. The 'which is what this used to claim' aside and the MEASURED anecdote are slightly chatty, but they reinforce the most important warning rather than padding the text.

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 zero-parameter getter with an output schema, this covers everything an agent needs: what is returned, the ambiguity risk, how to detect the wrong document, and how to avoid it. No material gap remains.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify at the parameter level, and the schema coverage is nominally 100%.

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 PCB board information') and enumerates the returned content: outline vertices, layer stack, origin, board_path. It does not explicitly name the sibling it differs from (e.g. get_board_info, pcb_get_board_outline), so an agent must infer differentiation from the caveat rather than a direct comparison.

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?

Gives actionable guidance: check board_path before trusting the geometry, or activate the intended board first. It clearly explains the context in which the tool misbehaves (schematic focused, multi-document project), but it does not name alternative tools that would resolve the ambiguity.

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