list_schematic_junctions

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=True, idempotent=True, and destructive=False. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the result scope ('all junctions') and explaining that omitting schematic_path uses a configured default, which goes beyond the schema's empty default string.

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 concise: one main sentence plus a compact Args block. Every word adds value, no fluff, and the primary action is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter list tool, the description fully explains the operation and the parameter. With annotations covering safety and an output schema present, no further context is needed.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by documenting the only parameter: it is the path to a .kicad_sch file, is optional, and omitting it uses a configured default. This provides meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema property.

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 resource ('all junctions in the schematic'), clearly distinguishing it from mutation siblings like add_junctions and remove_junction. The scope ('all junctions') and file reference (schematic_path) make the operation unambiguous.

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 as a read-only listing operation but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No exclusions, alternatives, or conditions are mentioned, so guidance is only implicit.

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