list_schematic_wires

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to justify safety. It does add context about the optional path and configured default, but doesn't disclose return format or behavior across nested sheets. This is adequate but not rich.

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 with two short sentences and an Args section. Every word earns its place, front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, read-only, output schema exists), the description is adequately complete. It could mention whether wires from sub-sheets are included, but for a straightforward list operation, this is a minor gap.

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's Args section fully explains schematic_path: its purpose, file type (.kicad_sch), optionality, and default behavior. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions, though it could specify what the 'configured default' is.

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 'List all wire segments in the schematic' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from sibling list tools (e.g., list_schematic_components) by explicitly targeting wires.

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 on when to use the tool (to list wires) and even explains the optional schematic_path parameter and default behavior. It lacks explicit alternative comparisons or exclusions, but the context is straightforward and unambiguous.

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