get_schematic_summary

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the summary nature (page info and item counts), but does not disclose return format, pagination, or edge cases. Given the annotations, this is adequate but not enriched.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence for the tool purpose and a short Args section for the parameter. Every sentence adds value, and the key information is front-loaded. There is no waste.

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's simplicity (one optional parameter, read-only annotations, and an output schema indicated in context), the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does and how to invoke it. It is complete enough for an agent to select and call this tool correctly without additional clarification.

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 only defines schematic_path as a string with a default, and the schema description coverage is 0% because the description adds the semantic meaning: 'Path to .kicad_sch file. Optional; omit to use the configured default.' This explains the parameter's purpose and optionality, going beyond the schema's bare type definition.

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 ('Get') with a clear resource ('schematic page info and item counts'), which conveys what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_sheet_info or list_schematic_components, though the focus on 'summary' and 'item counts' provides some distinction.

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 notes the schematic_path is optional and explains the default behavior ('omit to use the configured default'), which is useful. It does not, however, state when to use this tool relative to alternatives such as list_schematic_components or get_sheet_info, leaving usage context implicit.

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