list_lib_symbols

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

Annotations already convey the safe, read-only, idempotent nature. The description adds minimal behavioral context by specifying the target file type and that the parameter is optional with a configured default, but it does not disclose error handling or edge cases. Given the strong annotations, the description contributes some additional value but is not rich in behavioral detail.

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 clear sentence followed by a concise parameter definition, with the main action front-loaded. There is no redundancy or extraneous information, making it highly efficient.

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 list operation with one optional parameter, strong annotations, and an output schema, the description covers essential usage. However, it could enhance completeness by briefly noting when to choose this tool over related ones like list_lib_footprints, though this is not critical given the clear purpose.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining symbol_lib_path as a path to a .kicad_sym file and its optionality with a default behavior. This goes beyond the bare schema property, which only has a title and default, providing meaningful guidance for the single parameter.

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 the specific verb 'List' and resource 'all symbols in a .kicad_sym library file', which clearly states the operation and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_lib_footprints. The scope is unambiguous and immediately understandable.

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 for listing symbols in a .kicad_sym file and notes the optional path with a configured default, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of alternatives like list_lib_footprints, so the guidance is inferred rather than explicit.

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