remove_dangling_tracks

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

Annotations already indicate destructive behavior (destructiveHint=true), and the description adds valuable context: the iterative removal process and the precise definition of a dangling segment (endpoint not connecting to pad, via, or another trace). It does not contradict annotations and goes beyond what structured metadata conveys.

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 and well-structured. It front-loads the main purpose, then explains the algorithm, and ends with parameter documentation. Every sentence adds value, with 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?

Given the simple tool (one optional parameter, output schema exists, annotations cover destructive behavior), the description is complete. It explains what, why, how (iterative), and the argument meaning. No gaps remain for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the description carries the full burden for the single parameter. It fully explains pcb_path: a path to a .kicad_pcb file, optional, with a default behavior ('omit to use the configured default'). This is clear and sufficient.

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's purpose: 'Detect and remove trace segments with unconnected endpoints.' It uses a specific verb ('remove') and resource ('dangling tracks'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like remove_traces by focusing on unconnected endpoints. The iterative behavior and dangling criterion add precision.

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 for when to use the tool (to clean up dangling segments) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It says what the tool does, which implies its use case, but lacks direct comparison to other trace-related tools.

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