list_pcb_zones

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description aligns by using 'List.' The description adds behavioral detail about the optional pcb_path and the fallback to a configured default, which supplements the structured data.

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?

Two compact sentences: a clear one-line purpose and a parameter explanation. No filler or redundant content.

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 low-complexity, read-only listing tool, the description covers purpose, scope, parameter semantics, and default behavior. An output schema exists, so return details need not be in the description.

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%, but the description fully explains the single parameter: 'pcb_path: Path to .kicad_pcb file. Optional; omit to use the configured default.' This compensates completely.

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 'List' and a specific resource 'zones (copper and keepout) on the PCB,' clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_copper_zone or fill_zones.

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 establishes a clear context: it lists all zones on the PCB. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the scope is unambiguous. The read-only nature and sibling lineage further clarify appropriate usage.

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