validate_hierarchy

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

Annotations already declare the operation safe (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), and the description adds behavioral detail by naming the exact checks performed. It does not contradict any annotation and provides useful context about what the tool inspects.

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 at about four sentences, front-loading the purpose and then listing specific checks. The parameter doc is integrated neatly, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 that the tool has a single optional parameter, clear annotations, and an output schema (mentioned in context), the description adequately covers what the tool does and the scope of validation. It could elaborate on output format or prerequisites, but the output schema presumably covers return details; the description is sufficient as a summary.

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 parameter 'schematic_path' is described in detail in the description: 'Path to root .kicad_sch file. Optional; omit to use the configured default.' This exceeds the schema, which only provides a title and default, compensating for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Validate hierarchical schematic for common issues.' This distinctly identifies the tool's purpose and differentiates it from sibling tools like 'validate_board' (PCB validation) and 'run_erc' (electrical rules check) by focusing on hierarchical schematic structure.

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 enumerates specific categories of issues checked (orphaned labels/pins, direction mismatches, duplicate reference designators, etc.), which strongly implies the tool's use case—hierarchical schematic structural validation—without explicitly naming alternatives. This is clear context rather than vague guidance, though it stops short of stating when not to use it compared to 'run_erc' or 'validate_board'.

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