get_board_info

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds specific return fields but does not disclose behavior like handling of empty pcb_path or error cases. It adds moderate value beyond 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that captures the core purpose. However, it omits parameter documentation, which would be warranted given the low schema coverage. It is concise but not fully self-sufficient.

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 tool has one optional parameter and an output schema, the description should explain the parameter behavior and possibly reference the output schema. It lists return fields but does not clarify the effect of pcb_path or default behavior.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for the only parameter 'pcb_path', and the description does not explain the parameter at all. The agent must infer its purpose from the tool name and context.

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 ('Get') and resource ('board summary'), and specifies the return fields (footprint count, trace count, net count, thickness). It is distinct from sibling tools like get_footprint_info or get_schematic_summary.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, such as when to prefer get_board_info over get_footprint_info or list_pcb_nets. There is no mention of prerequisites or context.

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