list_schematic_sheets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering safety. The description adds the scope ('all hierarchical sheets') and the optional default path behavior, which is useful context, but does not disclose return format or potential errors. Since annotations handle the safety profile, this is acceptable.

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 states the purpose, the second covers the parameter. All information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does and what the parameter means. It lacks explicit usage guidance or prerequisites, but given the straightforward nature and good annotations, it is nearly complete. A minor gap is not clarifying whether 'all hierarchical sheets' includes nested sheets recursively.

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 description explicitly explains the single parameter: 'Path to .kicad_sch file. Optional; omit to use the configured default.' This provides meaning beyond the input schema, which only has a default empty string and no description. It clearly conveys the parameter's purpose, optionality, and default behavior.

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 tool lists all hierarchical sheets in the schematic, using the specific verb 'List' and a specific resource. This distinguishes it from other list_* tools that target different entity types (components, labels, wires, etc.).

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 by stating what it does, but does not explicitly provide when-to-use context or alternatives. Sibling tools like list_hierarchy and get_sheet_info exist, but no guidance is given on when to prefer this tool over them.

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