add_via

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

Annotations provide no helpful context (all hints are false), so the description carries the full burden. It only states the literal action 'Add a via' without disclosing side effects (e.g., modifies the PCB file), required state (e.g., board must be loaded), or consequences of misconfiguration. This is a mutation operation with no behavioral transparency beyond the basic verb.

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 well-structured with a one-line summary followed by a clean 'Args:' list. Each parameter gets a concise explanation. There is no redundant fluff, and the format is easy to scan and parse. The information is front-loaded with the core action.

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 moderate-complexity tool with 7 parameters and an output schema available, the description covers the parameters and core behavior adequately. It lacks preconditions (e.g., the pcb_path must point to an existing .kicad_pcb file) and any note about the operation's effect on the board, but the parameter list is complete and the output schema likely covers return values. This is above average but not fully comprehensive.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining each parameter's meaning, including units for size and drill (mm), the default layers, and the optionality of pcb_path. However, some parameter semantics are thin (e.g., 'net' is only described as 'Net number' without clarifying what the number refers to), leaving room for improvement.

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 'Add a via at a position' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_trace or add_copper_zone by explicitly targeting vias. The action is unambiguous and directly tied to the tool name.

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 usage by stating the action ('Add a via at a position'), but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any prerequisites or context. There is no 'when to use' or 'when not to use' statement, which is a clear gap.

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