list_hierarchy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the root-schematic starting point and the optionality of the path, but does not disclose other behavioral traits like traversal depth or response structure. This is acceptable given the annotations and the presence of an output schema.

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 two sentences: the first defines the purpose, the second documents the single parameter. It is concise, front-loaded, and every sentence provides necessary value. The use of an 'Args' block is a clean way to structure parameter documentation.

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 optional parameter and an output schema, the description is largely complete. It could explicitly mention that the hierarchy includes nested sheets recursively, but the phrase 'full sheet hierarchy' implies this. The output schema presumably describes the return structure, so no further detail is required. Annotations handle safety and idempotency.

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 provides only a title and default for schematic_path with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates fully by explaining it is a path to a root .kicad_sch file, that it is optional, and that omitting it uses the configured default. This gives the agent complete information needed to use the parameter correctly.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('full sheet hierarchy') with a clear scope ('starting from a root schematic'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_schematic_sheets, which likely lists immediate sheets only, and get_sheet_info, which likely fetches a single sheet's details.

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 through the phrase 'full sheet hierarchy', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as list_schematic_sheets or validate_hierarchy. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned. The parameter guidance about using the configured default is helpful but does not address tool selection.

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