get_board_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so safety is covered. The description adds specific behavioral context by listing the summary fields, which is valuable beyond what annotations provide, though it does not mention error handling or file-not-found behavior.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first front-loads the purpose, the second clearly documents the argument. No redundant wording, every element serves a purpose.

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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and an output schema (which the description does not need to detail), the description is complete. It specifies what the tool returns and how to invoke it, and the annotations cover the safety profile.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% (pcb_path has no description in schema). The description compensates fully by explaining the parameter is a path to a .kicad_pcb file, optional, and with a configured default. This exceeds the baseline of 4 for 0 params because it adds meaningful semantic 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 tool's function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('board summary'), and enumerates the exact fields returned (footprint count, trace count, net count, thickness). This distinguishes it from sibling listing tools like list_pcb_footprints 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 parameter usage guidance (pcb_path optional, default behavior) but does not explicitly compare this tool to alternatives or state when it should be preferred over other board-level tools. The intended use is implied but not clearly delineated.

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