add_lib_symbol

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

Annotations provide little (readOnly=false, destructive=false). The description does not disclose side effects, such as whether adding a symbol overwrites existing ones, or any required permissions. The behavioral traits beyond annotations are not explained.

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 very concise: a single sentence followed by a short argument list. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the argument list is somewhat redundant with the schema, and the description could be structured better to include guidance.

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 there is an output schema and sibling tools, the description does not explain the output, usage context, or how this tool fits into the workflow. It lacks sufficient completeness for an agent to confidently select and invoke it.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description's 'Args' section adds minimal explanation for each parameter, including an example for symbol_name. However, it lacks details on constraints, validation, or relationship to other parameters.

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 tool loads a symbol from a .kicad_sym library into the schematic. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'add_symbol', which may have overlapping functionality.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_symbol'. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it.

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