get_board_info

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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining that the net count includes the unconnected net to match KiCad's counting and that omitting pcb_path falls back to a configured default.

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 summary is front-loaded and compact. The metric list is direct, the KiCad counting note is brief but relevant, and the parameter note is efficient without unnecessary padding.

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 board-summary tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description gives enough detail to call it correctly. It covers the metrics returned, the optional path behavior, and the one non-obvious counting convention.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter explanation. It does: pcb_path is documented as the path to a .kicad_pcb file and as optional, with omission using the configured default, which adds meaning beyond the bare schema default of an empty string.

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 uses a specific verb and resource, 'Get board summary,' and enumerates exactly what is included: footprint count, trace count, net count, and thickness. The board framing also distinguishes it from the sibling 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 use case is implied by 'board summary,' but the description does not explicitly say when to prefer this over siblings such as list_pcb_footprints, list_pcb_nets, get_footprint_info, or get_schematic_summary. The only concrete usage guidance is that pcb_path may be omitted to use the configured default.

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