list_pcb_traces

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 fully covered. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as side effects or exclusions, beyond restating the listing scope. This matches the baseline for a tool where annotations carry the transparency burden and the description adds no extra context.

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: one declarative sentence plus a short arg explanation. Every word adds value, and the structure cleanly separates the purpose from parameter details. This is appropriate for a simple list tool.

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 list tool with one optional parameter, the description is complete. It states exactly what is returned (traces and vias), explains the default behavior for the missing argument, and an output schema exists to define the return structure. No missing context prevents correct invocation.

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 input schema only provides a title and default for pcb_path, with 0% description coverage. The description compensates fully: it explains that pcb_path is 'Path to .kicad_pcb file' and clarifies it is optional, with behavior when omitted: 'omit to use the configured default.' This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema.

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 action: 'List all trace segments and vias on the PCB.' This uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('trace segments and vias'), and the tool name 'list_pcb_traces' directly corresponds. It is distinct from sibling tools like list_pcb_footprints or list_pcb_nets, which list other PCB elements.

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 clear context by specifying what is listed ('all trace segments and vias') and the optional pcb_path parameter. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or situations where a different list tool should be used, but for a simple read-only list operation, the intended usage is obvious. A 5 would require explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance.

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